Trump’s Day One: A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
Donald "the enemy of the People" Trump is redoubling his efforts to get Republicans to kill the filibuster. WHY? Because America agrees with the Democrats that protecting healthcare is more important than reopening gov't.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … s-11-03-25"Trump administration will provide partial November food stamp benefits"
Will anyone object when I call Trump the real enemy of Americans and a honest to god, real asshole?
The Trump administration said today that it will provide partial food stamp benefits for November by tapping into the program’s contingency fund amid the ongoing government shutdown.
A US Department of Agriculture official said in a sworn statement that the agency will use $4.65 billion from the contingency fund to pay the November benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which he said will “be obligated to cover 50% of eligible households’ current allotments.”
Recipients will not see the payments immediately.
In court papers submitted Monday, the administration said it decided against pulling funds from other sources of money to provide full SNAP benefits for November. The program costs a total of roughly $9 billion for the month, the agency has said.
The decision came after a federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the US Department of Agriculture last week to either start providing full November benefits to recipients or partial benefits if the agency opts to only draw on SNAP’s contingency fund.Sad that he had to be ordered to do this.
America is finally regaining its sanity after 10 horrific months of the mentally ill, enemy of the people Donald "I'm God" Trump.
Across America they delivered a very loud message that they REJECT this sick president many of them voted for.
VA - CRUSHING WIN FOR DEMOCRATS with Spanberger winning by DOUBLE DIGITS (13%) and sweeping the LT. Governor and AG. They also picked up a WHOPPING 13 seats in their House of Delegates.
NJ - CRUSHING 13-POINT HISTORIC WIN FOR DEMOCRATS as Sherriil beats Trump backed candidate.
PA - TRUMP's attempts to reshape its Supreme Court failed SPECTACULARLY
NYC - CRUSHING WIN FOR MAMDAMI despite Trump telling Republicans to vote for Cuomo.
CA - In response to Trump's probably illegal attempts to redistrict Red States, Californians RESOUNDINGLY accepted a temporary redrawing to counter the cheating Republicans. Better, they did it the LEGAL way by having the PEOPLE choose.
LATINO VOTERS - After realizing they have been LIED TO by Trump, they rejected him and were KEY in many Democratic victories.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/04/politics … y-virginia
SHUTDOWN - Federal workers urge Democrats to keep up the fight for their healthcare. Polls show clearly that stopping Republicans from killing HealthCare is more important than keeping the government open.And what is hilarious? After a terrible night, their first order of business is making it harder to vote instead of making grocery prices lower like they promised....LOL. so out of touch. Republicans lost because Americans reject their insane policies.
https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1986067998323392668And...
Democrats broke the Republican Party’s supermajority in Mississippi, flipping two state Senate seats in a huge win!
For the first time in 13 years, Mississippi Democrats will be able to exert some political power in that sorry state.
Democrats flipped two statewide seats in Georgia by double digits also!
Trumpism was roundly and overwhelmingly rejected yesterdayThey sure did. Trumpism lost everywhere it was on a ballot. Millions of voters refused to go along with the cruelty and unfairness of the Trump regime.
"Trump's predecessors increased their wealth by millions, his net worth has risen billions just in 2025 alone. "
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets … ocialshare
Politics aside, folks, you've been duped.
(And it is not as though you weren't warned.)How about re-do that comment, using percentages instead of dollars. You know - predecessors increased their worth by 10,000% while Trump increased his by 20%.
Pretty easy to make a buck when you have 4B already. Not so easy when you're broke to start with.Percentages are often useful metrics but not in this case where, as you said, the baselines are so different.
Clinton's book deals don't raise ethical questions. Trump's cybercurrency manipulations, probably illegal and certainly unethical do.
AI put it this way succinctly:
Percentages can sound dramatic, but raw dollars are what actually move power, create conflicts, and shape public risk. A 10,000% jump off a tiny base may be life-changing for one person, yet it’s trivial next to a 10% gain on a multibillion fortune—hundreds of millions that can buy media, fund PACs, hire armies of lawyers and lobbyists, and influence markets. Percentages are also easy to game: start from a low or temporarily depressed estimate and the ratio explodes, while a billionaire’s equally—or more—consequential windfall looks small. Ethics, policy leverage, and democratic vulnerability track the magnitude of money at stake, not the optical flash of a denominator. In public accountability, the meaningful question isn’t “what percent,” it’s “how many dollars—and where did they come from?”
It looks like Donald "the failure" Trump is in deep trouble with his mostly illegal tariff war.
I listened to some of the Conservative Justices grill the Solicitor General - it was humiliating. Gorsuch got him to almost admit that it would be constitutional that Congress could delegate declaring war to Trump.
Even the most conservative Justices Thomas and Alito wasn't buying what Trump was selling about his faux emergencies.
"Trump admin faced deeply skeptical Supreme Court in tariff arguments"
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … s-11-05-25I'm guessing we'll have a 7-2 ruling striking down Trump's ability to impose tariffs. Any chance it could be 9-0? I didn't hear much from Thomas or Alito
Before this armchair experts here on Hubpages start tearing down,tap-dancing around, and throwing "whataboutisms" at it, I encourage you to read at least part of it or watch the PBS interview with the authors.
This is one of the saddest and scariest comment in the piece, in my opinion. This is what MAUGA and the Trump voters here have done to America.
"The DOJ you know, many of your viewers know is a very opaque institution. It's secretive. It keeps its own counsel. It doesn't share things unless it's in public court filings. But these people who lean conservative and careful and don't talk and squawk about their work are now coming to us and talking because they are basically crying for help.
They're saying this is a five-alarm fire, that the next terror attack, they're not sure that they're as prepared. In fact, they feel certain they're not as prepared as they were a year ago with the lack of expertise that's gone. One person said to me there is no imaginary security blanket around America. It's made up with these people with this expertise and they are, as Aaron said, gone."
Who made them GONE, the Trump voter did, they stripped our nation of its protection from foreign and domestic threats and today we are paying the price for it.
Remember this?
Vance said foreign students at elite U.S. universities are “not just bad for national security,” but also “bad for the American dream, for American kids who want to go to a nice university but can’t because their spot was taken by a foreign student.”
-March 2025
Rubio says U.S. will 'aggressively' revoke visas for many Chinese students
In the latest and most drastic move yet to curtail the numbers of international students studying in the U.S., the federal government will "aggressively" revoke visas from Chinese students and enhance scrutiny for future applicants, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
During the first Trump administration, thousands of mostly graduate-level Chinese students had their visas revoked, particularly if their research was in cutting-edge engineering fields that may have dual-use applications.
The newest move to pare back the numbers of Chinese students in the U.S. will likely further strain a bilateral relationship that has been imperiled by another trade war and serious technological competition over artificial intelligence and semiconductor chips.
- May 2025
Trump Administration Proposes New Rule to End Foreign Student Visa Abuse
“For too long, past Administrations have allowed foreign students and other visa holders to remain in the U.S. virtually indefinitely, posing safety risks, costing untold amount of taxpayer dollars, and disadvantaging U.S. citizens,” said a DHS spokesperson. “This new proposed rule would end that abuse once and for all by limiting the amount of time certain visa holders are allowed to remain in the U.S., easing the burden on the federal government to properly oversee foreign students and their history.”
- August 2025
Well...
Also, in August...
In August – just months after claiming that a lot of foreign students couldn’t even do basic math – Trump announced his intention to give 600,000 visas to Chinese— a figure more than double the number in the US now.
In Sept 2025,
US President Donald Trump has defended his decision to issue 600,000 Chinese student visas, despite a backlash from some supporters.
He told the Daily Caller on Sunday that it would be "insulting" to ban them. "I have a very good relationship with [Chinese] President Xi. I think it's very insulting to a country when you say you're not going to take your students.
The president is reversing the hard line his administration has taken on this for months, as trade talks with China continue.
Nov 2025
President Donald Trump defended his controversial plan to bring hundreds of thousands of Chinese students into the country on Monday, declaring, “I know what MAGA wants better than anybody else.”
“A lot of MAGA folks are not thrilled about this idea of hundreds of thousands of foreign students in the United States,” said Ingraham. “You’ve said as many as 600,000 Chinese students could come to the United States. Why, Sir, is that a pro-MAGA position when so many American kids want to go to school and there are places not for them, and these universities are getting rich off Chinese money?”
“We do have a lot of people coming in from China, and we always have. China and other countries. We also have a massive system of colleges and universities, and if we were to cut that in half, which perhaps makes some people happy, you would have half the colleges in the United States go out of business.”
“So? So what?” shot back Ingraham.
“Well, I think it’s a big deal,” replied Trump.
Ingraham: Are they fans of the United States?
Trump: Yeah but you would have, as you know, historically black colleges and universities would all be out of business. You would have a system of colleges and universities–
Ingraham: So we’re dependent on China to keep our university system going?
Trump: No, not China, but I actually think it’s good to have outside countries– Look, I want to be able to get along with the world.
Ingraham: They’re not the French, they’re the Chinese. They spy on us, they steal our intellectual property.
Trump: You think the French are better?
Ingraham: Yeah.
Trump: Really? I’ll tell you, I’m not so sure. We’ve had a lot of problems with the French where we get taxed very unfairly on our technology. You know, they put 25% taxes on American products. Look, assuming everyone treats us badly because that’s the way I am, but we’re taking trillions of dollars from students. You know, the students pay more than double when they come in from most foreign countries. I want to see our school system thrive.
Trump insisted, “It’s not that I want them, but I view it as a business.”
He then concluded, “You don’t want to cut half of the people, half of the students from all over the world that are coming into our country, destroy our entire university and college system. I don’t want to do that, and don’t forget MAGA was my idea. MAGA was nobody else’s idea. I know what MAGA wants better than anybody else, and MAGA wants to see our country thrive.”
Trump defended China a second time when Ingraham brought up that a Chinese diplomat said Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi should be beheaded over comments she made about Japan potentially defending Taiwan.
'Well, a lot of our allies aren't our friends either,' Trump said. 'A lot of our allies took advantage of us on trade more than China did.'
MAGA!!
SMHGood proof Trump is mentally ill - dangerously so!
More evidence that maga / trumpists stand for nothing but the daily whims of mango Mussolini.
LOL, "America first" was thrown into the dumpster and set on fire a while ago. I do think it's hilarious how the followers have to keep pivoting in terms of what they call their deeply held "ideology"More MAGA!!
Trump organization requested record number of foreign workers in 2025
The Trump Organization requested 184 foreign workers to work across various company properties, a record number that has increased over the years.
The company sought to hire workers through H-2A and H-2B visas for temporary positions at Mar-a-Lago, two golf clubs and at Trump Vineyard Estates in Charlottesville, Va., according to data from the Department of Labor.
Over the course of Trump’s first term and the first nine months of his second term, the Trump Organization’s visa requests increased from 121 in 2021 to 184 in 2025, according to Forbes.
Trump previously defended bringing in foreign workers on visas on Fox News’s “The Ingraham Angle” on Tuesday. He argued that the U.S. does not have enough people with “certain talents” to do particular jobs.
After Ingraham said that bringing in thousands of foreign workers would hurt efforts to raise wages, Trump agreed but added, “You also do have to bring in talent.”
Overall, his company has filed to hire 566 foreign laborers to work as servers, farm workers, kitchen staff, clerks and housekeepers, primarily.
So, you know, people with “certain talents” to do particular jobs. MAGA!!!!So?
I thought the left was all about letting people immigrate into the country.
This proves the left just has an issue with people doing it legally. I suppose the left believes it would be better to have people swarm across the border and be here illegally.
Can you say hypocrisy?I have no problems with them having foreign workers.
I have problems with MAGA hypocrisy.
How?
The issue has never been about immigrants coming into the country. The issue has ALWAYS been about them coming into the country legally.
So, supporting legal immigration seems to be pretty consistent.There is a difference between bringing in a SKILLED WORKER on a Visa...
And allowing in TEN MILLION UNSKILLED MIGRANTS and putting them on Government handouts.
Common Sense. Following the Law. Not hypocrisy.
SheeeeshThank you --- It is clear we need to offer a visa to attract well-educated workers in skills we can't fill. In my view, the Nation has enough unskilled workers. I mean, I am glad you pointed out the cost of unskilled migrants.
Many universities today are struggling to fill seats, and it’s not just about money — it’s about survival. With the number of American high school graduates leveling off or even declining in some states, colleges are facing a shrinking pool of domestic applicants. So, bringing in students from overseas isn’t just a preference anymore; it’s a necessity to keep enrollment numbers up and campuses running.
I actually see some positives in Trump wanting to bring in more college students from overseas. From my point of view, it’s a smart move economically and strategically. These students pay full tuition, which helps keep our universities strong and even lowers costs for American students. Many of them are bright, ambitious, and eager to contribute, so if they study here, graduate, and choose to stay, that’s a win for our economy and innovation. I like that Trump’s approach isn’t about open borders, it’s about attracting talent that benefits America first, which makes sense to me.
It also explains why so many schools are suddenly pushing international outreach programs and partnerships abroad. They know that without those foreign students paying full tuition, many departments, and even entire schools, could be forced to cut back or close. To me, it’s a sign that higher education in America has grown too dependent on steady enrollment rather than adapting to the country’s changing needs. Instead of rethinking what kind of education Americans actually want and need, universities are plugging the gaps with foreign students just to stay afloat.You're right.
Overall, his company has filed to hire 566 foreign laborers to work as servers, farm workers, kitchen staff, clerks and housekeepers, primarily.
I think you missed the larger point of my comment about the need for educated workers, as well as the importance of taking a serious look at how dependent our universities have become on foreign students just to stay financially afloat. Yes, it’s an unfortunate situation, but it’s also a reality that can’t be ignored.
That said, I have to ask—has it ever actually been proven that Trump was hiring undocumented migrants, or were those individuals working for him legally? It’s clear that we need to fill both skilled and unskilled jobs to keep our economy strong. What we don’t need, in my view, is an overflow of migrants who end up straining federal and state resources, funds that could be used to make life better for Americans who are genuinely in need. We already have laws that provide many avenues for foreign workers to come here legally, contribute through taxes, and maintain lawful status while helping to meet our workforce demands."What we don’t need, in my view, is an overflow of migrants who end up straining federal and state resources, funds"
Source to prove the validity of this statement?There is no source other than the myths from right-wing media.
Joel Steinn wrote:
"What we don’t need, in my view, is an overflow of migrants who end up straining federal and state resources, funds
Source to prove the validity of this statement?" Willow
ECO replyed --There is no source other than the myths from right-wing media." ECO
I have posted this information multiple times here on HP-- along with the laws that allow these funds to be spent on non-citizens. Hopefully, some will take the time to read the following and take note of the huge amounts of funds our Federal Government and State governments spend on non-citizens.
Here is my request to ChatGPT: I need facts to prove that non-citizens are using state and federal funds I need facts. I find it hard to find, so dig deep and give facts.
I’ll lay out verifiable, source-backed facts (first person, paragraph form) that prove non-citizens — including undocumented immigrants — are using both state and federal funds for emergency and pregnancy/childbirth care, and I’ll give the best numeric figures available for 2023–2024 timeframes along the way.
First, federal law allows Emergency Medicaid to pay for emergency medical conditions (including labor and childbirth when it’s an emergency) for people who otherwise aren’t eligible for full Medicaid because of immigration status. That is the legal mechanism by which federal Medicaid dollars sometimes flow to non-citizens who lack lawful status.
KFF
Second, on the national scale, the Congressional Budget Office / Kaiser Family Foundation aggregation shows meaningful federal + state spending on Emergency Medicaid for non-citizen immigrants: about $27 billion in combined state + federal Emergency Medicaid spending for non-citizen immigrants between FY2017 and FY2023, and about $3.8 billion in FY2023 alone (roughly 0.4% of total Medicaid spending that year). Those are direct, government-level figures that demonstrate aggregated federal/state outlays for emergency care provided to non-citizens.
KFF
Third, states themselves publicly report spending tied to non-citizens and to persons “not lawfully present.” For example, Texas HHSC released data showing $121.8 million in health-care costs for persons not lawfully present in hospitals for November 2024 alone. That is state-level reporting that documents real dollars spent caring for people lacking lawful status. Independent reporting and policy experts noted that such totals are part of a larger, measurable set of hospital expenditures for that population.
Texas Health and Human Services
Fourth, states that expanded coverage for undocumented residents provide large, explicit dollar totals showing state (and in practice some federally reimbursed) spending. California’s expansion to cover low-income undocumented adults is publicly reported as costing on the order of $8.4–$8.5 billion annually (state budget estimates for 2024–25), and the budget shortfall and subsequent reporting documents how much the state is allocating from its general fund to pay for that coverage. Because Emergency Medicaid is an available federal reimbursement channel for emergency services, expansions and how states classify services can affect the federal/state funding mix. In short: California’s official budget numbers show billions spent at the state level to cover undocumented people’s care.
CalMatters
Fifth, utilisation and share data from state analyses and reporters shows that undocumented patients account for a measurable share of hospital and ER visits in some states: one data-driven review found immigrants without legal status accounted for about 0.8% of hospital and ED visits in the second half of 2023 in Florida — which, when applied to that state’s total hospital spending, translated into hundreds of millions of dollars in care in that period. Those kinds of state dashboards and reports are concrete evidence that non-citizens use hospital services that are funded by state and federal mechanisms.
Stateline
Sixth, high-quality research and policy work (Urban Institute, KFF) confirm the pattern and limits: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for full Medicaid, but they do receive emergency services reimbursed through Emergency Medicaid and some states use state funds or state-only programs to provide prenatal/birth care and other services — and those state programs are captured in state budgets. See the Urban Institute’s work outlining noncitizen coverage and state responses for 2024.
Urban Institute
Seventh, important caveats so your proof is airtight: (1) federal law forbids most federal Medicaid for undocumented people except emergency care, so much of the spending is either Emergency Medicaid (which is federally-matched for those covered services) or entirely state-funded programs where states voluntarily cover undocumented people’s non-emergency care; (2) many public figures conflate “non-citizen” with “undocumented,” and some published totals mix lawfully present non-citizens together with undocumented people — so when you present numbers, be explicit about the population and program (Emergency Medicaid vs. state-funded full coverage). KFF and Urban Institute explicitly call out these distinctions.
KFF
Bottom line — the provable facts you can cite right now are: Emergency Medicaid exists and reimburses ER and emergency childbirth care for non-citizens (federal + state dollars flow here); CBO/KFF data show roughly $27 billion in Emergency Medicaid spending for non-citizens across FY2017–2023 and ~$3.8 billion in FY2023 alone; state reports (Texas, California budget documents, state dashboards) show hundreds of millions to several billion dollars in state spending tied to care for people not lawfully present or to state programs that cover undocumented residents (California ≈ $8.4–8.5 billion in 2024–25 budget estimates). Those are direct, citable facts you can use to prove that non-citizens are using state and federal funds for ER and birthing care.
KFF
If you want, I’ll do the next step and compile a state-by-state table for 2023–2024 (California, Texas, Florida, New York, etc.) with the exact official citations or budget lines that show how much each state reported spending on non-citizen care (Emergency Medicaid, state prenatal programs, “persons not lawfully present” hospital costs). I can also produce a short one-page handout you can use to prove the point with five numbered citations. Which of those would you like me to prepare?
My request ---Yes, do that —keep facts only with sources.
Quick table of state / national figures (2023–2024 timeframe)
Jurisdiction : What the number measures 2023–2024 figure (most recent public figure) Source (official/major reporting)
United States (national) Emergency Medicaid spending for non-citizen immigrants (federal + state combined), FY2017–FY2023; FY2023 single-year figure ~$27 billion (FY2017–FY2023 total); ~$3.8 billion (FY2023). KFF summary of CBO / CBO report.
KFF
+1
California (state) State budget estimate for Medi-Cal costs attributable to covering undocumented residents after expansion (state funds & program costs) ≈ $8.4 billion for FY 2024–2025 (state’s enacted budget estimate / reporting). California budget documents & POLITICO reporting.
ebudget.ca.gov
Texas (state) Hospitals’ reported costs for patients “not lawfully present” (reported to Texas HHS) — single month snapshot $121.8 million in health-care costs for persons not lawfully present in November 2024 (reported by Texas HHSC). Texas HHSC press release / state announcement; reporting in Texas Tribune.
Texas Health and Human Services
Florida (state) State’s health agency estimate of hospital care cost for people not legally in U.S. (2024 admissions reporting) ~$660 million (total cost of care provided to immigrants not legally residing in the state, 2024 admissions data); $76.6 million federal Medicaid payments for emergency care in 2024 (per state release). Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) press release / state report (March 2025).
Florida Health Care Admin
New York (state) Emergency Medicaid / “emergency Medicaid” enrollee growth and state reporting State records show sharp increases in Emergency Medicaid enrollment (reports cite hundreds of thousands of enrollee interactions; one analysis reported Emergency Medicaid enrollment surging to ~480,000). Empire Center reporting on NY state records; NY Medicaid scorecards.
Empire Center for Public Policy
Illinois (state) Actual vs. estimated spending for state-funded coverage programs for undocumented seniors (HBIS / HBIA program audits) Audit found actual program costs for Medicaid services for undocumented older adults were ~$262.2 million for FY21–FY23 (vs lower initial estimates). Illinois Auditor General performance report.
Illinois Auditor General
I dug through official state budgets, agency releases, high-quality think-tank work and contemporaneous reporting and assembled a compact state-by-state summary (2023–2024 time frame) that shows where state and/or federal funds were spent on emergency care, childbirth, or state-funded coverage for non-citizens (including undocumented people). I’ve included only verifiable figures and put source citations after each entry so you can paste these into your proof or handout.
What I can firmly prove (short, first-person paragraph)
I can prove, with official documents and mainstream reporting, that federal and state public funds are being spent on medical care for non-citizens: (1) federal Emergency Medicaid reimburses emergency medical and childbirth care for people who are otherwise ineligible due to immigration status — CBO/KFF aggregate data show ~$3.8 billion spent in FY2023 and ~$27 billion across FY2017–FY2023 (federal + state combined). Congressional Budget Office+1 (2) States publish their own expenditures and program estimates — California’s enacted budget and reporting put the cost to the state for covering undocumented residents at ≈ $8.4 billion for FY2024–25; Texas HHS reported $121.8 million in hospital costs for persons “not lawfully present” in November 2024; Florida’s state report estimates ~$660 million in hospital costs for people not legally in the U.S. in 2024 (with $76.6 million in federally-required Emergency Medicaid payments that year). Those state numbers are in official releases or state budget/audit documents, so they’re provable citations you can use. Politico+2Texas Health and Human Services+2
Important caveats you should include when you present this
“Non-citizen” is not identical to “undocumented.” Many published figures group lawfully present non-citizens together with undocumented immigrants; always quote the exact population the source uses. (KFF/CBO explicitly discuss “noncitizen immigrants” in Emergency Medicaid totals). KFF
Emergency Medicaid vs. state-funded full coverage: Federal Medicaid is generally not available for routine care for undocumented people; Emergency Medicaid covers emergency conditions (including emergency childbirth). States may use state funds (not federally matched) to provide broader coverage; California’s $8.4B is a state program cost estimate for expanded Medi-Cal. Be explicit which program you’re citing. Congressional Budget Office+1
Timing and aggregation: Some numbers are single-month snapshots (Texas Nov 2024), some cover fiscal years, and some are multi-year aggregates (CBO FY2017–FY2023). Match the time window in your claim to the source. Texas Health and Human Services+1
Methodological debates exist. Several state releases and partisan outlets interpret the same data differently; independent outlets (e.g., Texas Tribune) and auditors sometimes question methodology or representativeness. If you intend to make a national extrapolation, say so and show your assumptions. The Texas Tribune+1
Five most load-bearing sources (so you can paste them directly)
CBO report / KFF summary on Emergency Medicaid spending (national): CBO, “Emergency Medicaid Services for Certain Non-U.S. Nationals” and KFF summary. Congressional Budget Office+1
California enacted budget reporting / news: California budget documents / POLITICO coverage showing Medi-Cal estimate ≈ $8.4 billion for 2024–25. ebudget.ca.gov+1
Texas HHSC data release: Texas HHSC — $121.8 million in Nov. 2024 for persons “not lawfully present.” Texas Health and Human Services
Florida AHCA release (hospital admissions 2024): Florida AHCA — ~ $660M total cost; $76.6M federal Medicaid payments for emergency care in 2024. Florida Health Care Admin
Illinois Auditor General audit of HBIS/HBIA — showing ~$262.2M actual costs for Medicaid services for undocumented seniors across FY21–FY23. Illinois Auditor General
Would you like a one-page handout?
I can turn this into a one-page handout with the five numbered citations above, short explanatory bullets, and a one-sentence citation line under each bullet (ready to print or email). I can also expand the table to include more states (NY, NJ, MA, Washington, etc.) if you want a broader state-by-state spreadsheet. Tell me which you prefer and I’ll produce the handout now.Most of what your AI states are federally funded emergency funds that are by law have to be provided and state funded emergencies that have to be funded by law. it also makes a distinction between Undocumented and Non Citizens and it tells you to be careful as they can be conflated.
This is from your AI:
Seventh, important caveats so your proof is airtight: (1) federal law forbids most federal Medicaid for undocumented people except emergency care, so much of the spending is either Emergency Medicaid (which is federally-matched for those covered services) or entirely state-funded programs where states voluntarily cover undocumented people’s non-emergency care; (2) many public figures conflate “non-citizen” with “undocumented,” and some published totals mix lawfully present non-citizens together with undocumented people — so when you present numbers, be explicit about the population and program (Emergency Medicaid vs. state-funded full coverage). KFF and Urban Institute explicitly call out these distinctions.
KFF
What is KFF?KFF stands for Kaiser Family Foundation.
I believe my comment more than shows the amounts that are being spent on what could be labeled --- migrants, non-citizens, illegal aliens or asylum seekers...
Our laws cover all --- Not sure how many more times I need to post these facts. I also added where the Feds take the cash from to pay for these benefits.
Here are key U.S. federal laws and regulations that govern what non‑citizens—including undocumented (unauthorized) immigrants—can access in terms of emergency medical care, maternity/childbirth care, and food/public benefits. I’ll provide the statute/regulation, a brief summary in plain language, and how it applies. If you like, I can dig up specific state‑level statutes too.
1. Emergency Medical Care
Statute / Regulation: Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (“EMTALA”)
Requires that hospitals which participate in Medicare provide a medical screening examination to any person who comes to the emergency department, regardless of ability to pay or legal status.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheet … hatgpt.com
Therefore: Even undocumented immigrants are entitled to emergency medical care in hospitals that accept Medicare/Medicaid funds.
Statute / Regulation: 42 CFR § 440.255 – “Limited services available to certain aliens”
Federal regulation implementing part of the Medicaid statute: it allows “federal financial participation” (i.e., federal Medicaid matching funds) for services to aliens who are ineligible for full Medicaid benefits only where services are “necessary to treat an emergency medical condition (including emergency labor and delivery)” or for pregnant women in certain cases.
Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42 … hatgpt.com
In plain language: A person not lawfully present may be eligible for Medicaid reimbursement for emergency care including childbirth in an emergency/“labor” situation—but they are not eligible for full Medicaid coverage otherwise.
2. Public Benefits / Food Aid / Welfare Eligibility
Statute: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), 1996, codified in part at 8 U.S.C. § 1611 and § 1621.
8 U.S.C. § 1611(a): States that “an alien who is not a qualified alien … is not eligible for any Federal public benefit” except as provided in § 1611(b).
Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text … hatgpt.com
§ 1621(a): A state may provide that an alien who is not lawfully present may be eligible for state or local public benefits only through an enactment of state law after Aug 22 1996.
Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text … hatgpt.com
These statutes restrict eligibility of undocumented immigrants for many federal public benefits (e.g., SNAP, TANF, SSI).
Supplementary summary:
According to analyses, undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible for most federal benefits like SNAP, welfare (TANF), SSI, full Medicaid, except only very limited programs.
migrationpolicy.org
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/content … hatgpt.com
Some in‑kind or emergency services may be available (see exceptions).
Congress.gov
For example: Some food programs (like the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]) may have different rules depending on status. (Note: WIC is an example of in‑kind benefit, not always the same restrictions as cash benefits.)
migrationpolicy.org
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/content … hatgpt.com
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R4 … hatgpt.com
3. Maternity / Childbirth Care
As noted above, via 42 CFR § 440.255: reimbursement may be available for emergency medical conditions including emergency labor and delivery for aliens ineligible for full Medicaid.
Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42 … hatgpt.com
Thus childbirth in an emergency/urgent context is covered even for people who are not lawfully present—but routine prenatal and regular obstetric care may not be fully covered under federal Medicaid for undocumented immigrants.
Also, because EMTALA applies, hospitals must treat labor/emergency conditions regardless of status.
What this means in practice
If someone is undocumented (or otherwise not lawfully present), they are not eligible for most federal public benefits programs such as SNAP (food stamps), full Medicaid (in many cases), TANF.
They are eligible for emergency medical treatment and emergency labor/delivery services under the laws cited above.
States may choose to provide additional benefits (state‑funded) to undocumented immigrants, but federal law does not require it; many programs are restricted at the federal level.
Food aid: Unless the program is an exempt in‑kind benefit or state‑only program, undocumented immigrants generally cannot receive federal public benefit food programs (e.g., SNAP) under PRWORA restrictions.
HOW ARE THESE BENEFITS FUNDED
I can break this down clearly. The federal government does not have a specific “migrant medical care fund.” Instead, emergency medical care for undocumented immigrants is reimbursed using existing federal programs, mostly through Medicaid-related mechanisms and general federal health funding. Here’s how it works: AI
1. Emergency Medicaid (EM-Medicaid)
Statute / Regulation: 42 CFR § 440.255; 8 U.S.C. § 1611(b)(1)
Purpose: Provides federal reimbursement for emergency medical conditions, including labor and delivery, for immigrants who would otherwise be ineligible for Medicaid because they are not lawfully present.
Funding source: Federal matching funds (FMAP) through the MEDICAID iprogram. States pay the provider and then get reimbursed by the federal government.
Notes: Only covers emergency conditions, not routine care, prenatal visits, or chronic conditions.
2. EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act)
Statute: 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd
Purpose: Requires hospitals participating in Medicare to provide emergency care regardless of legal status or ability to pay.
Funding source: Hospitals absorb costs themselves or are reimbursed indirectly through programs like Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments—a federal Medicaid-related program that provides extra funds to hospitals treating a high number of uninsured or low-income patients.
Notes: EMTALA itself does not provide a federal fund; it imposes a mandate. Reimbursement comes through Medicaid/DSH or hospital budgets.
3. Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments
Statute: 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-4
Purpose: Helps hospitals that serve a large number of uninsured or low-income patients, including undocumented immigrants.
Funding source: Federal Medicaid DSH funds plus state contributions.
Notes: Often used to cover uncompensated care, including ER services for undocumented migrants.
4. Summary
There is no separate “undocumented migrant fund.”
Costs for ER/emergency labor care are paid via:
Emergency Medicaid reimbursement (federal/state match)
DSH hospital payments (federal + state)
Hospital self-funding or charity care programs (sometimes funded by state or local governments)
Routine benefits (like SNAP, full Medicaid, or non-emergency care) are generally not covered federally for undocumented immigrants, except through specific state programs or in-kind exceptions (like WIC or school meals).
AI asks -- If you want, I can make a one-page table listing all federal funding mechanisms, the statutes, and what types of migrant medical care they cover—that makes it very clear which costs are paid by whom. Do you want me to do that?
My response -- Yes, do that --- keep factual
Perfect—I’ll make a clear one-page table showing the main federal funding mechanisms that cover emergency medical care for undocumented immigrants, including statutes, what they cover, and how the funding works.
Funding Mechanism Statute / Regulation What It Covers How Funding Works
Emergency Medicaid (EM-Medicaid) 42 CFR § 440.255; 8 U.S.C. § 1611(b)(1) Emergency medical conditions, including labor and delivery, for immigrants ineligible for full Medicaid due to immigration status States pay hospitals/providers and claim federal matching funds (FMAP) from Medicaid
EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act) 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd Requires hospitals to provide emergency care to anyone regardless of immigration status or ability to pay Hospitals must provide care; no direct federal fund. Reimbursement may come indirectly via Medicaid or DSH payments
Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-4 Helps hospitals serving large numbers of uninsured or low-income patients, including undocumented immigrants Federally funded (via Medicaid DSH funds) plus state contributions; helps cover uncompensated care in ERs and labor/delivery
State/Local Charity Care or Emergency Programs Varies by state May cover additional costs for ER or maternity care not reimbursed federally Funded by state budgets, hospital charity funds, or local government programs
Key Points
You moved the goal post from your original claim that migrants are "STRAINING" federal and state resources.
To stay on topic, the question you should have asked is "Here is my request to ChatGPT: I need facts to prove that migrants are "straining federal and state resources" I need facts. I find it hard to find, so dig deep and give facts. (those were your words.)
So, I asked that question (not in deep research mode) and got the answer I would have expected given the limited framing. Since the implied problem is that migrants cause a national long-term problem (I assume you don't disagree with that) I followed up with a question to get to the heart of the matter.
I need facts to prove that migrants are "straining federal and state resources" I need facts. I find it hard to find, so dig deep and give facts.
Here are hard, citable numbers that show how recent migrant arrivals are straining federal, state, and local resources (cash, staff time, and service capacity). I kept this short and pointed.
#1 — New York City budget impact (local services): NYC’s Independent Budget Office estimated asylum-seeker spending at $3.6B in FY2024 and $3.1B in FY2025 (about $6.7B total, excluding some shelter build-outs) for shelter, food, case management, and related services. That’s a direct draw on city resources even after federal/state aid.
#2 — Federal emergency aid (FEMA/SSP) is large but still partial: DHS/FEMA’s Shelter and Services Program (SSP) has provided hundreds of millions to cities and NGOs. Example: NYC received $80.5M in one SSP tranche; Chicago, Denver, El Paso and others also received SSP grants—evidence that FEMA is backstopping local safety-net systems. (SSP is a DHS/CBP-funded program distinct from longer-standing FEMA shelter grants.)
Governing
#3 — Denver’s general-fund pressure: The City and County of Denver projected ~$180M in 2024 costs tied to the migrant response, forcing service reductions and budget reprioritization per local budget reporting.
#4 — Chicago’s ongoing city outlays: Chicago’s 2024 budget for migrant services has required repeated supplemental appropriations and federal SSP backfill, with AP noting sustained spending needs driven by shelter and care for arrivals (city, state, and federal funding streams combined).
Wikipedia
#5 — State-level spending on border operations: Texas’s Operation Lone Star has cost more than $11 billion since 2021 (state general-revenue and related funds). That’s a clear, multi-year diversion of state resources to policing, detention, and logistics at the border.
#6 — Capacity strain in shelters & services: NYC reported adding tens of thousands of people in city shelters—requiring hotels, respite centers, and emergency sites—while also seeking federal work authorization to relieve pressure on city systems. (AP overview of the scale and the city’s emergency posture.)
InfoHub
#7 — Federal courts & case-processing backlog: The immigration-court backlog has swollen to millions of pending cases, prolonging work authorization and case resolution, which in turn keeps people reliant on interim public services (shelter, schooling, health clinics) for longer. (AP explains how the backlog reflects system strain.)
Wikipedia
#8 — Congress scaled SSP appropriations in 2024: AP reported that congressional negotiators cut SSP from $800M to $650M in a spending deal—while cities’ obligations (shelter, food, school enrollment support) remained high. This widens the local-funding gap that cities must cover.
Wikipedia
Why these facts prove “strain”
The NYC IBO total alone (billions) shows extraordinary city-level fiscal pressure beyond baseline social-service budgets.
FEMA/SSP grants exist precisely because local systems are over capacity; the scale and repeated tranches document ongoing federal triage.
Governing
Denver and Chicago show the same pattern—large, unplanned outlays and tradeoffs within city budgets.
Wikipedia
Texas’s multi-billion dollar border operation is a state-level resource diversion.
The federal court backlog prolongs reliance on temporary local supports, increasing cumulative costs.
Wikipedia
One thing to keep in mind about ChatGPT is that it tends to aim for “polite middle ground.” If you ask a question that sounds like it’s only about costs or funding, it will often answer in that narrow frame—how much migrants cost—without automatically stepping back to ask about the net picture. The real issue isn’t just what migrants use in public services, but how those costs compare to the taxes they pay and the economic value they create. That’s the question my follow-up is trying to force onto the table: what are the net costs or benefits of having migrants in the country?
So, does that prove migrants are a major drag on American society like the question suggests?
Short answer: not by themselves.
What those figures show is acute, localized strain—big, unplanned costs hitting a handful of cities and some state programs (e.g., shelters, schooling, emergency aid, Texas border ops). That’s real pressure on those budgets. But that evidence doesn’t prove migrants are a “major drag on American society” overall.
Here’s the clean way to think about it:
What your numbers DO show
Concentrated fiscal stress in specific jurisdictions during a surge (NYC, Chicago, Denver) and large state outlays (e.g., Texas).
Operational bottlenecks (shelters, casework, courts) that force trade-offs and service cuts locally.
What they DON’T establish
A nationwide net negative effect. To show “major drag,” you’d need evidence that, in aggregate, migrants’ net fiscal impact (all taxes paid minus all services used across federal + state/local) and macro effects (labor supply, inflation, growth) are materially negative for the country as a whole—not just costly in receiving hotspots.
What the broader literature generally finds
In the short run, new arrivals can impose net costs on local governments (especially where education/shelter costs are high and federal reimbursements lag).
Over the long run, many studies find small net fiscal effects overall (sometimes negative at the state/local level for first-generation adults, often positive for the second generation) and labor-market/macro benefits (larger workforce, entrepreneurship, sectoral fill-in).
Put simply: “surge-driven local strain” ≠ “national drag.”
How to actually prove (or disprove) “major drag”
A nationwide net fiscal accounting over multiple years (federal, state, local) for the recent surge cohort.
Macro indicators tying inflows to weaker national outcomes (lower GDP per capita growth, higher structural unemployment/inflation) after controlling for confounders.
Counterfactuals (what those cities/states would’ve spent/earned without the arrivals).
If you want, I can assemble a one-page brief that cleanly separates: (A) proven local strain (budget line items you already have), from (B) the national-level evidence on net fiscal and macro impacts—so you can argue precisely what’s supported (local strain) without over-claiming a country-wide “major drag.”
Your edited post has nothing to do with my original point.
So, ooook.
Noted.Short answer: Yes,
Beyond the fact that it is in his character (no morals, no ethics, self-servicing) that he would do so it’s been very clearly documented that Trump’s businesses used undocumented workers for years.
There was so much evidence, I had to wait for ChatGPT to finish printing it before copying.
What’s not true is that Trump himself has been criminally convicted although he should have been for knowingly hiring them. But the idea that this is all rumor or “unproven” is just wrong.
Let me break it into buckets.
1. The Trump Tower / Polish workers case (this one did go through court)
In the early 1980s, during demolition of the Bonwit Teller building to make way for Trump Tower in Manhattan, hundreds of Polish laborers worked the job. Court records and later-unsealed documents show:
A class-action lawsuit alleged that undocumented, non-union Polish workers were used for the demolition and not properly paid. a common Trump tactic
Reporters Committee
+1
A federal judge found Trump was the “legal employer” for relevant purposes and noted Trump “should have known” about the workers’ status.
Wikipedia
+1
In 1998, Trump paid about $1.375 million to settle the case.
AP News
+1
The settlement wasn’t a criminal conviction, but between the court findings and the settlement over “undocumented Polish workers”, it’s fair to say:
It has been proven in civil court that Trump’s flagship tower project relied on undocumented workers.
2. Golf clubs and other properties (heavily documented by reporters & workers’ own admissions)
Decades later, during Trump’s political rise and even while he was president, investigations found his company still relied on undocumented workers:
Golf clubs (NY, NJ, FL, VA)
A 2019 Washington Post investigation interviewed 48 current and former Trump workers and found that undocumented immigrants worked at at least 11 Trump properties as housekeepers, waiters, groundskeepers, and stonemasons, in some cases for more than a decade.
The Washington Post
+1
After two housekeepers (Sandra Diaz and Victorina Morales) went public, the Trump Organization fired at least 19 workers from several golf courses for being undocumented and then rolled out E-Verify across the company.
The Washington Post
+1
Those workers described routinely using fake documents and said managers knew or even helped them get papers. One Ecuadorian stonemason put it bluntly:
“If you’re a good worker, papers don’t matter.”
The Washington Post
+1
The New York Times first broke the Bedminster story:
Victorina Morales, a Guatemalan housekeeper at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster, openly stated she was undocumented and worked there for years making Trump’s bed, cleaning his toilet, etc.
She and another worker told the Times that supervisors knew they were undocumented and helped them elude detection, and Morales said there were “many people without papers” working there.
Spectrum News 13
+1
Again, no criminal conviction for Trump personally, but you have:
Workers publicly admitting they were undocumented,
Multiple properties suddenly firing undocumented staff once the story broke, and
The company changing hiring practices (E-Verify) after the fact.
That’s not what “everyone was working for him legally” looks like.
Trump Winery
In 2019 reporting and later summaries, at least seven workers at Trump Winery in Virginia said they had worked while undocumented.
TBA
+1
3. So were they “working for him legally”?
From an immigration-law perspective, no:
Undocumented workers using fake or borrowed documents are not legally authorized to work in the U.S.
Employers are supposed to review documents in good faith, but if management knows or looks the other way (as multiple workers allege at Trump properties), the workers are still unauthorized employees, and the employer can be liable under IRCA.
What’s also true:
Trump and the Trump Organization typically say they didn’t knowingly hire undocumented workers and that they were fooled by false papers.
Apart from the Polish-workers civil case, there has been no criminal conviction of Trump or his company specifically for knowingly hiring undocumented workers.
But when you step back:
There’s a civil case with court findings + a $1.375M settlement over undocumented workers at Trump Tower.
AP News
+1
There’s extensive, consistent reporting across WaPo, NYT, AP, Univision, and others that Trump businesses relied on undocumented workers for years, and
The Trump Organization’s own behavior (mass firings + belated E-Verify rollout) lines up with those reports.
The Washington Post
+2
The Washington Post
+2
So if someone claims “it’s never been proven; they were all legal,” a fair, accurate response is:
We have a documented civil case showing undocumented workers were used on Trump Tower, and multiple later investigations, worker testimonies, and the Trump Organization’s own actions showing that his properties employed undocumented workers for years. What we don’t have is a criminal conviction for Trump personally — but the idea that everyone was working for him legally is simply not supported by the record.
This is also relevant to the "right in front of you" forum.
As to the myth of straining federal and state resources, I once again offer one of the many studies that debunk that myth.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catal … mmigration
The premise that skills "can't be filled" domestically is challenged by many, who suggest that the problem is not a lack of qualified local workers but rather employers' unwillingness to offer sufficient training, competitive wages, or improve working conditions to attract local talent. It's a fact that the so-called skilled workers on these visas have substantially lower wages.
Critics, such as the Economic Policy Institute, argue that employers can legally use a flawed prevailing wage system to underpay H-1B workers relative to market standards by assigning them lower "wage levels" (e.g., Level I or II for entry/qualified positions). Their analysis suggests a majority of H-1B jobs are certified at wage levels below the local median wage, which can be 17% to 34% lower on average for computer occupations.
A majority of migrant workers employed with H-1B visas are paid below-median wages: Large tech firms, including Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, use visa program to underpay workers | Economic Policy Institute https://share.google/cuHsDm09anhkvWPSnI will fall back on our laws, not speculation.
Relevant statutes & regulations
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(n)(1)(A)(i)(I) & (II) requires that the employer attest that the wage offered to the non‑immigrant will be at least:
the actual wage level paid by the employer to all other individuals with similar experience and qualifications for the specific employment in question; or
the prevailing wage for the occupational classification in the area of employment — whichever is higher.
DOL
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/laws-a … hatgpt.com
Under regulations, 20 CFR § 655.731 (Labor Condition Application requirements) states that an employer must attest on the LCA (Form ETA 9035/9035E) that they will pay the “required wage rate” which is defined as the greater of actual wage or prevailing wage.
Legal Information Institute
The U.S. Department of Labor’s guidance lays out that for an H‑1B worker you must be paid at least the actual wage for similarly employed workers or the local prevailing wage, whichever is higher.
DOL’s “Prevailing Wages” page notes the INA requires that the hiring of a foreign worker will not adversely affect wages and working conditions of comparably employed U.S. workers, and for H‑1B, H‑1B1, E‑3, etc., employers must pay the prevailing wage rate for the occupational classification in the area.
Nothing more to share on the subject.... Shared my thoughts. No further interest in the subject.The EPI report is most certainly not "speculation" but based upon real-world data. DOL "prevailing wage"
doesn't reflect reality for H-1B visas is based on the fact that a significant number of employers certify H-1B positions at the two lowest wage levels, which are often below the local median wage for similar jobs. This occurs because employers choose the wage level, and the government doesn't investigate unless there is a complaint or lawsuit. While the official prevailing wage determination sets a minimum, critics argue it's often manipulated by using low-level wages, allowing H-1B workers to be paid less than market rate and potentially undercutting U.S. worker wages.
EPI comments on DOL Request for Information on determining prevailing wage levels for H-1B visas and permanent labor certifications for green cards | Economic Policy Institute https://share.google/FiMiQljiHIVwjTqxS
EPI comments on DHS’s “Modernizing H-1B” proposed rule | Economic Policy Institute https://share.google/ZowaBECP4xBMajXQS
H-1B visas and prevailing wage levels: A majority of H-1B employers—including major U.S. tech firms—use the program to pay migrant workers well below market wages | Economic Policy Institute https://share.google/FsZYNwanYFbxWaAVW“The premise that skills "can't be filled" domestically is challenged by many, who suggest that the problem is not a lack of qualified local workers but rather employers' unwillingness to offer sufficient training, competitive wages, or improve working conditions to attract local talent. It's a fact that the so-called skilled workers on these visas have substantially lower wages.”
Again, I am with you on this one, Joel. Again, the ideal and the reality are two different things such as the idea that benefits for workers would be the same for domestic workers verses migrants. Migrants are, many times, vulnerable or would be less likely to register complaints to authorities of labor violations by employers. Otherwise, what is the advantage of hiring them over domestic labor which would be far less involved? Unless a complaint is officially lodged, who is going to know?Cred,
As someone from a family with legal immigrants, I can say, you are correct. If you are here with a legal work visa there are those who will take advantage of your situation. On the flip side, there are also employers who are absolutely wonderful. It sort of like anyone who goes to a job. You never know. Depending if you got the visa on your own or if you got your visa through your employer will determine if you can easily move to another job. I know people who have come here with an employer sponsored work visa and when it didn't work out, they went back to their home country. They always have that option. If you want to stay and seek other employment, you can apply for simple work visa.
There are always ways to resolve immigration issues when you are in the country legally.“If you are here with a legal work visa there are those who will take advantage of your situation. On the flip side, there are also employers who are absolutely wonderful.”
This problem has been with us for a while, I believe that the former is not just an aberration but is the case more often than people would admit.
I would also have to say that many under such a visa do not always have the option of returning home because if the economic situation were viable, they would have had no reason to leave their native country in the first place.
Many of these people cannot afford to stir a cauldron that would likely make it more difficult for them to retain their employment.Trump is using labor from foreign countries to do his labor tasks for him. It begs the question of why doesn't he use people in this country to do the jobs? in my view it is because of one man, Stephen Miller and his quota of 3,000 people per day being deported without any due process of law.
I asked AI, how many field workers, domestic workers, and construction workers were deported between 2016 and 2025 without due process of law? Here is the results.
**Direct Answer:** Between 2016 and 2025, U.S. immigration courts issued *hundreds of thousands of deportation orders in absentia* (without the immigrant present), which are widely considered due process failures.
Based on ICE removal totals and in absentia rates, a **conservative estimate is that tens of thousands of field workers, domestic workers, and construction workers were deported without due process during this period**.
Exact counts by occupation are not published, but forensic modeling shows these three sectors together likely account for **5–10% of all such removals**.
-Deportation Totals (2016–2025)
- **ICE removals per year** ranged from ~65,000 (2021, pandemic dip) to over **200,000+ in 2025** under intensified enforcement.
- **Aggregate 2016–2025 removals:** ~1.5–1.7 million people.
In Absentia (No Due Process) Rates
- **2016–2020:** In absentia removal orders averaged **35–50% of immigration court completions**.
- **2021 pandemic dip:** ~10%.
- **2022–2023 surge:** 22–33%.
- **2025:** Early data shows sharp increases again, with mass expedited removals.
- **Aggregate 2016–2025 in absentia removals:** ~400,000–500,000 cases.
Occupational Exposure
Using labor-force composition of undocumented workers:
- **Agriculture (field workers):** ~25% of undocumented deportees.
- **Domestic work:** ~12–15%.
- **Construction:** ~15%.
Applying these shares to the ~400,000–500,000 in absentia removals:
- **Field workers:** ~100,000–125,000.
- **Domestic workers:** ~50,000–75,000.
- **Construction workers:** ~60,000–75,000.
-Why These Groups Are Overrepresented
- **Field workers:** Rural isolation, seasonal contracts, high undocumented share.
- **Domestic workers:** Informal employment, lack of legal protections, isolated workplaces.
- **Construction workers:** Frequent worksite raids, subcontracting, mixed legal status.
Summary
From 2016–2025, **roughly 200,000–275,000 field, domestic, and construction workers combined were deported without due process of law**. These numbers are modeled estimates, not official counts, but they highlight how enforcement disproportionately impacts the most precarious labor sectors.If I didn't know better, PeoplePower, I would swear you are describing conditions in a third would dictatorship.
Trump is using labor from foreign countries to do his labor tasks for him. It begs the question of why doesn't he use people in this country to do the jobs? in my view it is because of one man, Stephen Miller and his quota of 3,000 people per day being deported without any due process of law
=========
Mike, I have always said that these attacks on migrants have been supply based with no focus on the demand. People like Trump want their Mexican gardeners while making the issue akin to an invasion from south of the border. I positively loathe the man. I thank you for providing the detail supporting a correct point of view.You are welcome. I asked AI if Stephen Miller's quotas for ICE are like bounty hunters? Here is the answer I received.
This is a sharp analogy, Mike, and it gets at the mechanics of how enforcement incentives can distort behavior. Let’s break it down:
Stephen Miller’s ICE Quota Push
- During the Trump administration, Stephen Miller was reported to have pushed for **arrest and deportation quotas** within ICE.
- The idea was to set numerical targets for detentions and removals, effectively measuring ICE’s “success” by volume rather than by prioritization (e.g., focusing on violent offenders).
- This approach was controversial because it shifted ICE from discretionary enforcement toward a **production-line mentality**: more arrests = better performance.
Comparison to Bounty Hunters
- **Bounty hunters** operate under a **financial incentive system**: they get paid for each fugitive they capture.
- Miller’s quota system created a **numerical incentive system**: ICE agents were pressured to meet targets, regardless of context.
- The similarity lies in the **mechanism of external pressure**—agents are judged not by the quality of enforcement but by the quantity.
- The difference: bounty hunters are private actors chasing profit, while ICE agents are state actors chasing compliance with political directives. But the behavioral distortion—pursuing easy targets to meet quotas—is structurally similar.
Strategic Implications
- Quotas risk **misallocation of enforcement resources**: agents may go after low-hanging fruit (e.g., immigrants with minor infractions) rather than high-priority threats.
- This mirrors bounty hunters who sometimes prioritize easier captures over more dangerous fugitives.
- In both cases, the incentive system can undermine the stated mission (public safety vs. immigration control) by rewarding numbers over outcomes.
Historical Analog
- The analogy echoes **policing quotas** in U.S. cities, where officers were pushed to meet arrest or ticket numbers. That often led to disproportionate targeting of marginalized communities, not necessarily crime reduction.
- Miller’s ICE quotas fit into that same lineage: enforcement distorted by metrics rather than mission.
So yes—your “bounty hunter” analogy is apt. It captures the way quotas transform enforcement into a numbers game, incentivizing agents to chase volume rather than justice.
Careful there, it's dangerous to put up real world data. You will be accused of lying or of fake news. LOL
If Trump doesn't obey the law, why do you expect anybody else to - especially employers whose only motivation is the bottom line.
If the law worked, people wouldn't speed, would they.Right back to Trump. I’m not interested in the direction you diverted to. I’ve said many times that I don’t get into those Trump diversions because they, in my view, feed into others' negativity and make the whole conversation feel less intelligent. I’d rather stay focused.
Apparently, even some MAGAs have problems with MAGA hypocrisy.
Trump faces heat from MAGA base on ‘America First’ agenda
MAGA leaders erupted this week over President Donald Trump’s assertion that the United States needs foreign workers because it does not have enough “talented people,” questioning the president’s commitment to the “America First” politics he popularized.
The dissent showed an impassioned base willing to challenge Trump on some issues while largely supporting his leadership. Some warned that the rifts could depress turnout among less engaged voters that Trump mobilized, with Republicans already nervous that they will not show up when he is not on the ballot.
Trump has responded defiantly to criticism and cast himself as the ultimate arbiter of what his “Make America Great Again” movement wants.
“Don’t forget MAGA was my idea,” he told Fox News host Laura Ingraham this week after she questioned the number of foreign students he is allowing into the country. “MAGA was nobody else’s idea. I know what MAGA wants better than anybody else.”
Ingraham’s Monday interview with Trump triggered much of the latest blowback...
“If you want to raise wages for American workers, you can’t flood the country with tens of thousands, or hundreds —” she said.
“Well, I agree, but you also do have to bring in talent,” Trump said.
“Well, we have plenty of talented people here,” Ingraham said.
“No you don’t,” Trump said. “No you don’t.” He continued to press his case, adding that it’s difficult to fill some specialized jobs with Americans who lack experience.
The GOP backlash was unusually fierce.
Conservative radio host Erick Erickson remarked on his Wednesday show that this was the “first time” he had seen so many longtime Trump supporters “furious with the president.”
“Saying that we don’t have talent in America doesn’t sound very ‘America First,’” Erickson said. “The splits are coming within MAGA, because the president is a lame duck, and as he says stuff like this, he exacerbates the splits.”
MAGA influencers were direct in their rebukes. Tim Pool, a right-wing YouTuber, wrote sarcastically Wednesday on X: “Dont worry Trump is bringing in more H1Bs to make sure our young people are f----d.”
Laura Loomer, a far-right influencer known for her loyalty to Trump, said in an interview that the MAGA base “has every right to feel disappointed” over the Trump administration’s approach. “We need to make sure that promises made are promises kept,” she said.
Stephen K. Bannon, a former Trump adviser and prominent MAGA commentator, devoted much of his show Wednesday to the H-1B visa issue. But he focused on members of Trump’s Cabinet, playing clips of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reiterating Trump’s points and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem defending the visa program. “What’s driving this is the tech bros and the oligarchs,” Bannon said.
Trump also has gotten crosswise with his allies on other matters. He drew some backlash on the right last month for aid to Argentina, which critics called at odds with the “America First” message.
Let's not forget. Talent!
"Overall, his company has filed to hire 566 foreign laborers to work as servers, farm workers, kitchen staff, clerks and housekeepers, primarily."
MAGA!!! LOLHe seems to be on a roll in pissing off his MAUGA base.
* This
* Epstein
* Not giving them SNAP money
* Taking away their health insurance.
How much more can they take from this dangerously mentally ill who is in cognitive decline megalomaniac? (That description is based on reports from hundreds of mental health professionals)
It appears you had to fabricate "This proves the left just has an issue with people doing it legally" JUST SO you could get in "Can you say hypocrisy?"
We see right through you.
An expansive liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in the Arctic took a big step forward this week while officials at the Energy and Interior Departments heralded it as key to President Donald Trump’s "American energy dominance" agenda.
Alaska LNG, a branch of the New York City and Anchorage-based Glenfarne energy company, and energy technology giant BakerHughes announced an alliance that will bring to reality and accelerate plans for a nearly 1,000-mile, 42-inch LNG pipeline down the middle of the Last Frontier, and a corresponding terminal on the Kenai peninsula.
The 807-mile pipeline is projected to begin near Prudhoe Bay on the Arctic Ocean and run down to Nikiski – a village halfway between Anchorage and Homer. Fox news
The Alaska LNG Project has the potential to bring substantial economic benefits to the United States. By unlocking vast natural gas reserves from Alaska’s North Slope, the project will create thousands of high-paying jobs in construction, engineering, operations, and support services, both in Alaska and nationwide. The export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to global markets, particularly Asia and Europe, could generate billions in revenue, strengthen U.S. trade balances, and solidify the nation’s position as a leading energy supplier. Beyond direct employment and revenue, the project will stimulate local economies through infrastructure development, ancillary services, and increased state and federal tax revenues. In addition, the project supports long-term energy security, reduces dependence on foreign energy sources, and enhances geopolitical leverage by supplying allies with a reliable U.S.-produced energy resource.
I’ve been following the Alaska LNG Project for some time, and I believe what we’re seeing now is the culmination of many years of planning, fits and starts, regulatory pauses, and ultimately, a moment of momentum. The project, which aims to pipe natural gas from Alaska’s North Slope to a liquefaction terminal on the Kenai Peninsula for export, is finally moving into the “build” phase.
The Early Years
The idea of getting North Slope gas to market has been around for decades. The project’s initial design called for an 800+‑mile, 42‑inch pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Nikiski, Alaska, plus a liquified natural gas (LNG) export terminal. By 2020, the project secured a major federal milestone: the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) authorised its construction and operation.
Stumbling Blocks Under the Joe Biden Administration
Despite this federal authorisation, the project did not immediately surge ahead. Several issues held it back:
Regulatory and environmental review: While permits were in hand, executing the project still required detailed engineering, land acquisition, environmental mitigation, and securing long‑term commercial agreements.
Market and investment uncertainty: The cost has been estimated at tens of billions of dollars. Large‑scale infrastructure of this kind needs robust off‑take contracts (buyers for the LNG), financing, and certainty. Without full visibility on those, progress slows.
Policy shifting: While the Biden administration approved the project’s export authorization and offered support, the broader policy environment emphasized climate goals, renewable energy, and longer‑term reduction of fossil fuels. A massive gas pipeline and export project like this did not align as neatly with the messaging, which likely affected the pace and clarity of execution.
Structural delays: The sheer complexity, remote terrain, Arctic conditions, multi‑agency coordination, long lead times meant even well‑authorised projects often sat in “pre‑construction limbo”.
So while the project had what looked like major approvals, it lacked the full commercial push to go into construction. In my opinion, the administration under Biden did not block the project, but the momentum simply didn’t reach the “go‑building” stage yet.
The Shift
Then came recent developments. Earlier this year, the state entity Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) entered an exclusive agreement with private developer Glenfarne Group (via its Alaska LNG unit) to advance the project, signalling that private‑sector alignment was falling into place. By mid‑2025 more than 50 companies had expressed interest in being partners for the project, with contract values in the hundreds of billions. Then today, Trump announced that the project will go forward under his “American energy dominance” agenda, a clear signal that federal policy is being mobilised to push construction ahead.
Why This Matters and Why I Give Credit
At this stage I think the project has moved from “potential” to “probable.” The formal private‑sector alliance and the funding signals shift the risk profiles. Where earlier the project waited for major take‑off, we’re now seeing trigger events.
Here’s why I believe credit goes to the leadership and policy direction that put active gears behind the project:
The earlier approvals cleared the regulatory path, but the final investment decisions and major partner alignment didn’t happen until now. That bold commercial activation deserves recognition.
The announcement frames the project under a strategy of “American energy dominance,” with federal officials publicly celebrating the project and aligning it with national strategy.
The shift from a dormant approval to an active build path underlines the role of policy clarity, regulatory certainty, commercial alignment, and political will.
So yes—though the project’s roots go back several administrations, and though the Biden era provided regulatory approvals, it is under the current push that the Alaska LNG Project is being brought to fruition. In my view, the leadership now is deserving of credit for making the deal real.
What Risks Remain
I’m realistic: even with this progress, I see remaining hurdles:
Final investment decisions (FID) still need to be publicly committed for all phases; timelines beyond the pipeline still hold uncertainty.
Market risk remains: global LNG prices, competition, and demand from Asia will all matter. If the economics change, the project could be delayed again.
Construction risk: building through Alaska’s remote terrain, permafrost, and the vast pipeline will pose major engineering, logistical, and environmental challenges.
Environmental and community concerns will not vanish simply because we’re in “build mode.” They’ll still need to be managed.
My Take
I believe the Alaska LNG Project is now entering a phase where it may reasonably be expected to deliver. What was historically stalled under long regulatory and investment inertia is now being pushed ahead. The framing today is different—it’s not just “we might build” but “we are building,” and that’s what makes all the difference in infrastructure of this scale.
I think we should watch the next 12‑24 months closely: partner agreements, financing documents, ground‑breaking of construction, and offtake contracts from Asia will all tell whether the promise will fully become reality. If it does, this will stand as a strong example of turning long‑term energy vision into execution—and yes, I believe it will reflect well on the leadership that made it happen.
Would you like me to pull together major milestone dates in a chart (with approvals, partner deals, expected construction, etc.) so you have a ready timeline for sharing or publication?A new AP-NORC poll shows Trump -34 on the economy (33% approve, 67% disapprove). A bold agenda to reclaim America?
In case you haven't heard, we will no longer have the pleasure of yelling at each other - Hubpages is closing.
Dear HubPages authors,
HubPages has been a fantastic ride and accomplishment among all of us over the past almost 20 years. We wanted to take a moment to thank you for your contributions to the site, whether you just joined us or have been a long-time HubPages author.
We regret to inform you that due to the changing internet media landscape, HubPages is being wound down as described below. Here is what is ahead for your existing accounts and content.
Account:
In approximately one week (on or around November 19, 2025), the system will no longer accept new content submissions, content edits or new accounts. You will still be able to access your account and view your earnings balance.
Earnings Program:
In January, the Earnings Program will be discontinued for all users. On or around January 15, 2026 will be the last day to generate earnings. Over the next month or two thereafter, final Earnings Program balances will be calculated, with final balances of $5.00 or greater to be paid out to users.
Your Content:
Access to your existing account will remain active until at least the end of February 2026. At this time, we encourage authors to make copies of your content.
You may leave your content up on hubpages.com for users to continue to read.
Starting in March 2026, all outstanding account matters that previously may have been handled within your account itself will need to be addressed directly via email to team@hubpages.com.
We would once again like to thank you for your contributions to HubPages.
Moving forward, please contact team@hubpages.com directly with any questions.The lies that are being told. Just brazen .
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins stated on CNN that most grocery prices have decreased since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025. However, Bureau of Labor Statistics data reveals the food-at-home Consumer Price Index increased 2.7 percent over the past year, with rises in meats, beverages, and staples outweighing declines in items like eggs and milk.
Strange. They seem to believe that regular people don't shop for their own groceries.One of the requirements to work for Donald "the sexual predator" Trump is to LIE as much as he does, even about things it is child's play to debunk - such as falling grocery prices. They must be sick to their stomachs to know they have sold their soul to the devil.
This should make our Trump defenders proud of their idol.
"Trump administration drops plan to require passenger compensation for delayed flights"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/15/us/trump … ptions-hnkBest part of HP going away: It's taking all these endless words with it. I'm sure the toxic nature of these discussion boards is a big part of the HP demise.
Kathleen, I have to be honest: comments like yours say far more about your bitterness than they do about the community you’re attacking. Many of us actually enjoyed this space. We talked, debated, disagreed, learned from one another, and, believe it or not, built friendships across those disagreements. That’s the very opposite of toxicity. That’s what a healthy forum looks like.
You didn’t participate much, yet even you stopped in occasionally to share your views, which means the space couldn’t have been as awful as you’re now pretending it was. If it were truly “toxic,” you wouldn’t have been here at all.
And the idea that HP is shutting down because of “endless words” or because people dared to debate? That’s simply not serious. HP’s issues were financial and structural. Blaming the users is just an easy way to avoid admitting you never appreciated the value of real dialogue.
The truth is that open conversation, messy, passionate, sometimes sharp-edged, was the best part of this place. It meant people cared. It meant people were thinking. It meant people were alive, not silent.
If you personally didn’t like strong opinions, that’s fine. But don’t rewrite history and pretend the community died because people were talking. It was the talking that kept it alive as long as it was.
So no, the “best part” isn’t HP going away. The best part was the conversations, the connections, the disagreements that forced us to think. And if you couldn’t see that, that’s on you, not on the rest of us who showed up.**HubPages is not shutting down immediately, but it is undergoing major changes that signal a decline in its traditional revenue-sharing model.** Writers are reporting reduced earnings, lower visibility, and the end of payments for content on several of HubPages’ niche sites. While the platform itself still exists, many see these moves as steps toward winding down its role as a viable publishing and income source.
What’s Happening at HubPages
- **Revenue-sharing cuts:** As of April 14, 2025, HubPages (under The Arena Group) stopped paying for content hosted on niche sites like *Delishably, Hobbylark, Owlcation, WanderWisdom, LetterPile,* and *WeHaveKids*. Only content moved back to *Discover.HubPages* continues to earn revenue.
- **Declining earnings:** Writers report that article views and scores have dropped significantly, making it harder to earn money. Many long-time contributors are considering migrating to platforms like Substack or Medium.
- **Community sentiment:** Some users believe HubPages is “on track for shutting down revenue share completely,” urging writers to archive or move their work before further changes.
- **Mixed reviews:** HubPages still operates as a publishing platform, but reviews highlight declining revenue, poor communication, and heavy moderation. Many writers feel the site no longer supports sustainable income.
What This Means
- **Not a full shutdown yet:** HubPages remains online, and Discover.HubPages still pays writers.
- **Strategic retreat:** The end of payments on niche sites suggests HubPages is consolidating and possibly phasing out its broader publishing ecosystem.
- **Future uncertainty:** If revenue sharing is eliminated entirely, HubPages may survive only as a non-paying publishing community, which would push serious writers elsewhere.
Key Takeaway
HubPages is *not closing its doors right now*, but the platform is shrinking in scope and profitability. For writers who rely on it for income, this is a warning sign to diversify and prepare for a possible full shutdown of its revenue model in the near future.
Would you like me to map out **alternative platforms for publishing and monetization** (like Substack, Medium, or WordPress) so you can see which might best fit your writing goals?Thank you for your kindness. I’ll take a look at everything you shared. I’ve actually been putting off finishing a book I’m writing about my mom’s life story. I made it more than halfway (200 pages) through and then stalled because the emotions were just too much at the time. Maybe it’s finally time to face all of that and finish it. And who knows, maybe completing the book will send me on a whole new journey. A Netflix movie someday, right? LOL
I will miss our back and forths, I think we came to know each other.Has anyone asked the forum administrator's if and when the forums would be closing down?
In the letter they sent out, they stated they are stopping new content, edits, and new accounts on Nov 19th, which could mean the platform is entering maintenance mode. When a site stops allowing uploads or changes, it’s often a sign that they’re preparing for a shutdown of some functions.
This is from the HuhPages Community Forum.
https://hubpages.com/community/forum/36 … f-hubpages
One of the Bold Initiatives Trump had in mind was to force Red States to redraw their congressional maps to squeeze more Republican districts out of them. For example, the Texas legislator carved things up to generate 5 MORE Republican seats.
Well, as many expected a TRUMP JUDGE found that Texas illegally racially gerrymandered and ordered TX to use their old map in November.
Meanwhile, in retaliation to Trump's attempt to cheat, the VOTERS of California chose to redraw their map to generate 5 Democratic seats. Because the voters did it, that should past muster.
https://apnews.com/article/redistrictin … 6c9f26d899
Boy did THAT backfire on Trump!!!
As to an appeal, it was good to see that a TRUMP JUDGE wrote the majority opinion.
OH, and one of the things they found wrong was that the redistricting was at Trump's order.Fox News Poll: Voters say White House is doing more harm than good on economy
Unhappy with the economy. Pain with prices. Unsure about Trump administration policies. It adds up to high disapproval among the president’s loyal constituencies.
Here are six takeaways from the latest Fox News national survey.
— Some 76% of voters view the economy negatively. That’s worse than the 67% who felt that way in July and the 70% who said the same at the end of former President Biden’s term.
— Large numbers, overall and among Republicans, say their costs for groceries, utilities, healthcare and housing have gone up this year.
— Voters blame the president. About twice as many say President Donald Trump, rather than Biden, is responsible for the current economy. And three times as many say Trump’s economic policies have hurt them (they said the same about Biden’s last year). Plus, approval of how Trump is handling the economy hit a new low, and disapproval of his overall job performance hit record highs among core supporters.
Trump’s job performance drew career-high disapproval among men, White voters and those without a college degree.
Eighty-six percent of Republicans approve, down from 92% in March.
Among all voters, 41% approve of the job Trump is doing, while 58% disapprove. Only once have his ratings been lower and that was during his first term, 38-57% in October 2017. Two months ago, it was 46-54%.
Compared to a year ago, voters say costs have increased for utilities (78%), healthcare (67%), housing (66%) and gasoline (54%). And 85% their grocery prices went up this year, including 60% who say costs increased "a lot." Majorities of Republicans agree with majorities of Democrats and independents that costs have gone up on each of these items except gas.
At the end of Biden’s term, voters said by a wide 30-point margin that his economic policies had done more to hurt than help their families, driven by three-quarters of Republicans saying they had been harmed. The new survey shows almost identical results, as voters say by a 31-point margin that Trump’s economic policies have hurt rather than helped them, driven by the three-quarters of Democrats saying they have been harmed. In December 2018, during his first term, only 21% overall said they had been hurt by Trump’s policies, including just one-third of Democrats.Those numbers tell me that even a lot of Trump's vaunted MAUGA base hate him for his economic policies.
Funny... I just read you bad-mouthing America on another thread (which was supposed to be a positive and uplifting thread, incidentally) You spoke of U.S. division, labels and politics which you just don't understand... on your happy, perfect little island, so what's it to you?
Boy, the claws and insults are out to get you I see.
I think is funny how triggered they are over some poll. Maybe because is FOXNEWS so they cant say is fake news. LOL
It has nothing to do with the poll, but you already know that.
Take care IB.Try to keep up, Little One. Fox News is no longer Maga. NewsMax is the new Maga. ;-)
GA
Apparently for you it has some appeal. Curious?
Sharlee, again you assume the worst about someone who disagrees with you, which is why I avoid engaging with you.
Lately I have avoided involvement here because there is so much questionable information being reported as fact. But I can only stand by for so long without challenging it.
And I responded this time because there are many people on this site that I respect and would rather my reputation not be sullied - especially because we will soon go our separate ways.First, you’ve never quite mastered the art of replying directly to the comment you intend to address. That leaves the rest of us either guessing what you mean or taking the time to search for the comment you might be referencing. So, I’m assuming you mean the comment I’ve copied and pasted below, one of your comments to which I already replied.
Now, if this isn’t the comment you’re referring to, you’ll need to provide the specific comment that has clearly offended you.
Kathleen Cochran wrote:
Best part of HP going away: It's taking all these endless words with it. I'm sure the toxic nature of these discussion boards is a big part of the HP demise.
MY REPLY: And just to be clear, this is my honest view: free speech goes both ways. I think it’s only fair to share the full conversation for complete context—your comment and my reply. It simply provides the full exchange that led to your latest comment, which otherwise seemed to hang in midair, leaving everyone wondering what it was about.
"Kathleen, I have to be honest: comments like yours say far more about your bitterness than they do about the community you’re attacking. Many of us actually enjoyed this space. We talked, debated, disagreed, learned from one another, and, believe it or not, built friendships across those disagreements. That’s the very opposite of toxicity. That’s what a healthy forum looks like.
You didn’t participate much, yet even you stopped in occasionally to share your views, which means the space couldn’t have been as awful as you’re now pretending it was. If it were truly “toxic,” you wouldn’t have been here at all.
And the idea that HP is shutting down because of “endless words” or because people dared to debate? That’s simply not serious. HP’s issues were financial and structural. Blaming the users is just an easy way to avoid admitting you never appreciated the value of real dialogue.
The truth is that open conversation, messy, passionate, sometimes sharp-edged, was the best part of this place. It meant people cared. It meant people were thinking. It meant people were alive, not silent.
If you personally didn’t like strong opinions, that’s fine. But don’t rewrite history and pretend the community died because people were talking. It was the talking that kept it alive as long as it was.
So no, the “best part” isn’t HP going away. The best part was the conversations, the connections, the disagreements that forced us to think. And if you couldn’t see that, that’s on you, not on the rest of us who showed up. " Sharlee
I really enjoyed this forum, made a few friends, and it’s genuinely sad to see it fold. Sure, I could share my thoughts on your latest comment, but to be honest, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I have to laugh at myself; I spent more time trying to decode your one-liners and track down the comment you might have been replying to than anything else.
I think it’s time to accept that I just really annoy you. But then again… What was the famous last line in Gone With The Wind?"I rest my case." Kathleen
Thank you, I think you should. I think the conversation speaks for itself. So I will copy/paste the conversation, so it is not lost to anyone whose curiosity is piqued.
Full conversation --
Sharlee01 wrote:
First, you’ve never quite mastered the art of replying directly to the comment you intend to address. That leaves the rest of us either guessing what you mean or taking the time to search for the comment you might be referencing. So, I’m assuming you mean the comment I’ve copied and pasted below, one of your comments to which I already replied.
Now, if this isn’t the comment you’re referring to, you’ll need to provide the specific comment that has clearly offended you.
Kathleen Cochran wrote:
Best part of HP going away: It's taking all these endless words with it. I'm sure the toxic nature of these discussion boards is a big part of the HP demise.
MY REPLY: And just to be clear, this is my honest view: free speech goes both ways. I think it’s only fair to share the full conversation for complete context—your comment and my reply. It simply provides the full exchange that led to your latest comment, which otherwise seemed to hang in midair, leaving everyone wondering what it was about.
"Kathleen, I have to be honest: comments like yours say far more about your bitterness than they do about the community you’re attacking. Many of us actually enjoyed this space. We talked, debated, disagreed, learned from one another, and, believe it or not, built friendships across those disagreements. That’s the very opposite of toxicity. That’s what a healthy forum looks like.
You didn’t participate much, yet even you stopped in occasionally to share your views, which means the space couldn’t have been as awful as you’re now pretending it was. If it were truly “toxic,” you wouldn’t have been here at all.
And the idea that HP is shutting down because of “endless words” or because people dared to debate? That’s simply not serious. HP’s issues were financial and structural. Blaming the users is just an easy way to avoid admitting you never appreciated the value of real dialogue.
The truth is that open conversation, messy, passionate, sometimes sharp-edged, was the best part of this place. It meant people cared. It meant people were thinking. It meant people were alive, not silent.
If you personally didn’t like strong opinions, that’s fine. But don’t rewrite history and pretend the community died because people were talking. It was the talking that kept it alive as long as it was.
So no, the “best part” isn’t HP going away. The best part was the conversations, the connections, the disagreements that forced us to think. And if you couldn’t see that, that’s on you, not on the rest of us who showed up. " Sharlee
I really enjoyed this forum, made a few friends, and it’s genuinely sad to see it fold. Sure, I could share my thoughts on your latest comment, but to be honest, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I have to laugh at myself; I spent more time trying to decode your one-liners and track down the comment you might have been replying to than anything else.
I think it’s time to accept that I just really annoy you. But then again… What was the famous last line in Gone With The WindYes, I do use a lot of words. When I’m in a conversation, I make the effort to express my thoughts fully and stay focused on the actual topic. I try to address the point directly and appropriately.
You, on the other hand, seem far more interested in critiquing me personally than in discussing the subject at hand. That kind of behavior adds nothing to the conversation; it only shows that you didn’t like what was said — or who said it.
You seem to think you have the right to insult me, yet you accuse me of, and your words--- “assuming the worst about someone who disagrees with you.” And still, you never offer a single example of when I supposedly did that. You just throw out vague complaints that mean very little without specifics.
You opened this door. And given how freely you disregarded my feelings, I feel entirely within my bounds to be honest with you in return.
Let us just return to the comment that started this ongoing conversation--- I will simply respond to it directly, and open up sharing my view. My truth.
"Kathleen Cochran profile image73Kathleen Cochranposted 44 hours ago
Sharlee, again you assume the worst about someone who disagrees with you, which is why I avoid engaging with you.
Lately I have avoided involvement here because there is so much questionable information being reported as fact. But I can only stand by for so long without challenging it.
And I responded this time because there are many people on this site that I respect and would rather my reputation not be sullied - especially because we will soon go our separate ways." Kathleen
I’ll keep this reply brief. I don’t care what you think of me personally. If you have an issue with the information I’ve shared, the smarter approach is to identify the specific point and debate that, not debate what you think of me. That's called getting personal.
As for your claim that I somehow damaged your reputation, I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about — other than the fact that you addressed your comment to me personally and used my name. The truth is, over the years, I’ve mostly ignored your posts, and it’s pretty evident that very few people here engage with you at all.
What I have noticed is that you’re consistently rude, replying with one-liners that aren’t on topic, but make me the topic. I could say more, but I don’t need to insult you. Two wrongs won't make this right.
Part of Donald "the sex offender" Trump Bold Agenda was to deny food to countless millions of food deprived or starving people in the world; it is estimated that 10 to 20 million will die as a direct result of him closing down USAID.
Smart people who study this stuff estimate that in the 10 months Trump has been in office, he is responsible for an estimated 600,000 deaths worldwide.
AND NOW, Trump is directly responsible for the spread of ISIS in areas he personally took funding away that kept people fed. Now ISIS is doing it.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/title-2573517Donald "the enemy of the people" Trump's sick attempt to stop cities from, among other things, hire first responders by cutting off DHS grants was stopped temporarily by two different federal judges.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/22/politics … unties-hnk"A Bold Agenda to Reclaim America"
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1DgA1M8CXU/A perfect example of right-wing propaganda. Thank you for exposing it.
What is finally being "exposed", Eso... are the real threats to the United States of America, and U.S. citizens seeing them properly dealt with, in real time!
How Interesting.
Trump took aim at you, Sharlee. You are no longer considered working as a "Professional" as a nurse and therefore qualify for much less student loan money. Fortunately for you, you already have your now "non-professional" license.
"A coalition of nursing and other health care organizations are angry over a Trump administration plan that could limit access to student loans in some cases.
Students pursuing graduate degrees in nursing, physical therapy, public health and some other fields would face tighter federal student loan limits under the plan because it doesn’t consider them professional programs.
The revamp is part of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” passed by Congress.
While graduate students could previously borrow loans up to the cost of their degree, the new rules would set caps depending on whether the degree is considered a graduate or professional program.
The Education Department is defining the following fields as professional programs: pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry and theology.
Left out are nursing, physical therapy, dental hygiene, occupational therapy and social work as well as fields outside of health care such as architecture, education, and accounting.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/25/health/n … oans-trumpDonald "the sexual predator" Trump's cracks are showing.
"This has been a sleeping giant of an issue for Trump. Pew Research Center polling showed the percentage of Republicans who said Trump was making the federal government work better dropped from 76% in February to 55% in August.
And the government shutdown doesn’t appear to have helped.
The AP-NORC poll conducted in early November showed 32% of Republicans disapproved of how Trump was handling the federal government. The Marquette poll showed nearly half – 48% – disapproved of Trump’s handling of the shutdown."
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/06/politics … ase-divideHave you heard the one about Trump's so-called "Bold Agenda"? Well it seems the raison d'etre of his terrible tariffs was to eliminate those nasty trade deficits. Well, I am here to tell you, it isn't working as planned.
Trump's soft on China approach has now INCREASED the Trade Deficit with China to over ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!!!
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/08/business … r-intl-hnkYou remember those rock-solid "peace" deals Trump has claimed to have made happen? Well, one of those (many, actually) is falling apart and they want nothing to do with Trump in the future.
This one is between Thailand and Cambodia where Thailand recently attacked Cambodia after claiming Cambodia was threatening them.
"Asked by CNN if Thailand was planning to discuss the latest border clashes with Trump, Sihasak said it was up to Cambodia and Thailand to “work things out.”
“We’re not really convinced that the joint (peace) declaration is working according to its intention,” he said in a sit-down interview. “I think this is something that we have to work out with Cambodia.”
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/07/asia/tha … r-intl-hnkWell DARN, Trump's so-called "Bold Agenda" has failed again!!
This time from the damage he did to the weather service,
"Trump admin is ‘trying to put out a fire they started’ at Weather Service as a cold, snowy winter looms"
"The National Weather Service is working to hire back hundreds of positions laid off or otherwise cut by the Trump administration, but it’s progressing at a snail’s pace, with about 80 final job offers accepted for meteorologists, hydrologists and other specialized staff.
The agency received permission in late July to add a total of 450 people after about 550 were cut by DOGE earlier this year. The decision to authorize new hires came after lawmakers and citizens expressed concerns about how the NWS cuts would impact public safety."
Everybody predicted this but Donald "only I can fix it" BROKE it -again.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/09/weather/ … orms-trump
Here is more
"It takes 13 meteorologists to fully staff a weather forecast office on a 24/7 basis, though many NWS facilities are doing so with just 10 or 11 at the present time, said Tom Fahy, the legislative director for the NWS Employees Organization, the union that represents agency staff. For example, the weather forecast office in Goodland, Kansas is short eight meteorologists, according to statistics Fahy compiled.
He said that the NWS offices in Rapid City, N.D. and Cheyenne, WY are also short 7 or 8 meteorologists, and that, where new people have been hired, those individuals are not all in place. It takes time to move personnel and match peoples’ skillsets with specific gaps in expertise around the country.
Winter storms can be deadly, and short staffing at the NWS has the potential to erode forecast accuracy and delay warnings, experts said.
“I worry that timing, accuracy, and delivery of forecasts, watches, and warnings will degrade to the point of risking lives and property,” Spinrad said. “I envision one or more severe winter storms for which emergency managers, departments of transportation, and hospitals will be less prepared and forewarned than they have been historically,” he said."
You remember those floods in Texas that killed all those girls? That was partly because of this cut back!
What a stupid, stupid man he is. His mind is going to. I heard him talking yesterday and he sounded worse than Biden ever did.Are they gonna hire back the people they fired, or are they gonna project2025'it?
That, more than stupidity, was a plan.From what I have read and come to understand, the big wave of firings at the National Weather Service wasn’t some mysterious disaster; it happened because the new administration decided to shrink parts of the federal workforce, and they targeted the people who were easiest to cut: probationary employees, recently converted contractors, and staff offered early retirements or buyouts. They also put a partial hiring freeze in place, which meant that when all those people left, the NWS couldn’t immediately replace them. That’s why so many local forecast offices ended up short-staffed.
Now the agency has permission to hire hundreds of those positions back, but anyone who knows how federal agencies work understands that rehiring highly specialized meteorologists and technicians isn’t something you fix overnight. So the situation is more complicated than the “Trump broke the weather service” talking point. It was a restructuring push, not some cartoonish attempt to sabotage forecasting, and the system is already being restaffed, just not as fast as critics want to pretend it should be.
So, how far have we actually fallen since January 1961? Who could have imagined….
https://www.salon.com/2025/12/09/trumps … democracy/So I read the article --- So, I assume you appreciated the author's view. As you might guess, I came out the other end with some thoughts of my own.
I have to push back a bit on this one. The article portrays Trump’s foreign policy as a rejection of America’s historic role in defending democracy, but it ignores the realities of the world we live in today. First, the comparison to Kennedy is actually historically appealing, but misleading. Kennedy was speaking in the context of the Cold War, when the U.S. faced a direct ideological and military challenge from the Soviet Union. That’s very different from the modern global landscape, where threats are multipolar, nuclear, and geographically dispersed. Treating every crisis as if America must carry the burden alone is neither realistic nor sustainable.
Trump’s National Security Strategy is often painted as “isolationist,” but a closer look shows a strategic recalibration. For example, insisting that Europe assumes “primary responsibility” for its own defense isn’t abandoning allies, it’s acknowledging that Europe is wealthy, capable, and geographically positioned to respond to threats in its own region. Expecting America to always step into every European conflict would inevitably stretch our resources and risk escalation into wars that don’t directly threaten U.S. territory. History, even recent history with Afghanistan and Iraq, shows the dangers of overextension.
The article also frames migration policy as xenophobic, but national security isn’t inherently about bigotry. Securing borders and managing migration flows is a standard policy concern for any nation; framing it as a threat to “Western civilization” is a choice by the author, not a neutral fact. In reality, Trump’s approach emphasized sovereignty and domestic priorities, which many Americans supported across party lines.
The article misrepresents the UN and global order. America’s “commitment to democracy” has always been constrained by pragmatism. Supporting democratic ideals abroad doesn’t guarantee success, as witnessed by the decades-long struggles in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. The U.S. cannot impose democracy everywhere; expecting it to do so invites both military and economic overreach.
Trump’s strategy was less about abandoning freedom and more about redefining priorities in a complicated, multipolar world. Europe must defend Europe, China and Russia will naturally pursue their interests, and America’s role should be focused on protecting its homeland, maintaining strategic alliances, and avoiding endless foreign conflicts. Romanticizing Kennedy-era rhetoric without considering the modern context ignores the harsh realities of 2025.You’re right, I did appreciate the author’s point of view.
Kennedy’s address was more than just geopolitical banter, but described America’s place in the world assumed after WWII and expressed it quite eloquently. The values and objectives he spoke of were timeless and have basically been adhered to by every president since Kennedy, to include Joe Biden who would not let Russian aggression against another country stand. These values supersede situational circumstances.
Supporting an aggressor as opposed to standing against one, is not engaging in unnecessary conflict. The alliances has been a deterrent against aggression.
Trumps proposals and behavior on the international scene is a clear diversion from our geopolitical status from just the recent past. I don’t have to go back to Kennedy and nostalgia.
If we don’t support democratic ideals, do we capitulate to tyrannical ones?
More than once even by those in this forum have I heard xenophobia described as an attack on Western Civilization. That is standard lingua in rightwing oriented circles.
Yes, there remains the danger of military overreach, so why is Trump picking a fight with Venezuela or threatening Nigeria over some domestic issue involving Christians there? By sinking ships anywhere in this hemisphere without justification he is going beyond Kennedy, to Teddy Roosevelt and an era of blatant American imperialism. He believes that he can dictate to other nations in the hemisphere who their acceptable leaders are to be, in some twisted interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine.
My opinion is that Trump and his approach to geopolitics are a step backward, but as you know there is little about Trump in my opinion that would ever redeem him.
I find the predominant theme of this article quite spot on……Your comment raises legitimate concerns, but it overlooks the core reasoning behind Trump’s approach. Trump’s foreign policy, whether dealing with Venezuela, Nigeria, or hostile actors in the Western Hemisphere, has always been framed around deterrence, not imperialism. His team’s argument has consistently been that weakness invites chaos, and that the U.S. pays a much higher price when crises are allowed to escalate unchecked.
I think it’s always worth looking beyond the surface-level criticism and taking a deeper look at any president’s strategy before judging it.
Take Venezuela: the issue wasn’t simply “picking a fight.” The country had collapsed under Maduro, creating one of the largest refugee flows in modern history. That instability spills directly into our hemisphere, cartels, trafficking networks, and hostile foreign influence from Iran, Russia, and China were increasingly embedded there. Trump viewed that not as meddling, but as preventing a failed state from becoming a launchpad for powers openly hostile to the U.S.
Nigeria is similar. When Trump speaks out about Christians being persecuted, he isn’t dictating their domestic politics; he’s responding to one of the most documented and severe religious-violence crises in the world. You may disagree with how forcefully he pushes the issue, but from his perspective, the U.S. has an obligation to stand up for targeted minorities, especially when silence from previous administrations accomplished nothing.
As for the accusation of “sink their ships anywhere in the hemisphere,” the policy you’re referring to was aimed squarely at criminal organizations involved in trafficking, narcotics, and illegal weapons flows, not legitimate governments. It echoes what Kennedy himself did during the Cuban Missile Crisis: make it absolutely clear that America wouldn’t tolerate hostile activity near its shores. Kennedy ring-fenced Cuba because Soviet missiles threatened U.S. sovereignty. Trump uses maritime interdiction because cartels and hostile networks threaten U.S. sovereignty in a different but very real way.
Trump’s critics often label his doctrine as “imperialist,” but that misses the central point: he isn’t trying to control other nations; he’s trying to prevent other nations, and non-state actors, from destabilizing the U.S. or its immediate neighborhood. You may see it as a step backward. Others see it as finally enforcing boundaries that previous administrations allowed to erode.
Whether one agrees with Trump or not, his actions are not random. They’re rooted in a belief that the U.S. must act early and decisively, rather than wait for threats to mature into conflicts that cost far more lives and money later. In my view, this is unique and shows initiative on the part of Trump. Shows a form of problem solving, I don't think I have seen from many presidents.
Democrat wins Miami mayor's race for the first time in almost 30 years
Democrat Eileen Higgins has won the Miami mayor’s race, NBC News projects, giving the party control of the office for the first time in almost three decades in another victory for Democrats ahead of next year’s pivotal midterm elections.
Higgins, a former Miami-Dade County commissioner, won 59% of the vote to 41% for Republican Emilio González, a businessman and former city manager who was endorsed by President Donald Trump. González conceded Tuesday night, his campaign confirmed.And a Democrat Flipped a solidly Republican Georgia House seat in a district Trump won by 11 points at the same time.
Okay. Did President Donald Trump complain badly?
https://www.salon.com/2025/12/10/trumps … is-a-flop/
Americans must learn to adjust to a lower standard of living,” he told the crowd before suggesting a specific solution to prices hiked by his tariffs, which he continues to insist are a success. “You can give up certain products. You can give up pencils…You don’t need 37 dolls for your daughter. Two or three is nice.”
Is this his answer, is this the best he can do? So much for his pledge and promises. America can ill afford to be duped again by the rightwinger and his agenda, which amount to whole lot of nothing. Blaming Biden? You have to be kidding meOne of Trump's "Bold Agenda's" was to start a tariff/trade war with the rest of the world based on the totally wrong belief that America was at the short-end of the stick with literally EVERYBODY. It was widely and correctly predicted that doing that at the scale he initially proposed would quickly drive up inflation to very high levels while at the same time put America into a deep recession. The reason that hasn't happen and won't happen to the degree it was going to can be summed up in two phrases, a headline, and one truth.
1. Full of bluster and Weak-kneed
2. TACO
3. "Thousands of carveouts and caveats are weakening Trump's emergency tariffs"
AND
"Eight months later, half of U.S. imports are avoiding those tariffs."
Trump said on the now non-existent Rose Garden: "“To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, ambassadors, and everyone else who will soon be calling to ask for exemptions from these tariffs,” Trump said in April when he rolled out global tariffs based on the United States’ trade deficits with other countries, “I say, terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers, don’t manipulate your currencies.”
But then a funny thing happened after all that bluster.
'But in the time since the president gave that Rose Garden speech announcing the highest tariffs in a century, enormous holes have appeared. Carveouts for specific products, trade deals with major allies and conflicting import duties have let more than half of all imports escape his sweeping emergency tariffs."
Now, we all know that the remaining half is still going to drive up inflation (Trump and some here falsely claim inflation is either non-existent (Trump) or down (others here) falsely claim). It has currently increased to 3% from the 2.5% where Biden left it and is expected to hit 3.5% - 4% before falling back to 2.5% (which is what Powell is hoping for) by the end of the years. (What will probably throw a wrench into that retreat is Trump will order the next Fed Chair to drastically cut interest rates which drives up inflation.)
On the recession front, according to Goldman-Sachs the chances of a recession are still higher than when Trump took office (15%) at today's 20%, But that is off of a high of 35% before Trump started TACOing.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/1 … a-00685168In my view, your comment reads more like a partisan narrative than an actual analysis. First, calling Trump “full of bluster and weak-kneed” is pure opinion masquerading as fact. Anyone who follows trade knows that Trump’s tariffs were a negotiating strategy, not a reckless attempt to punish the world blindly. He explicitly targeted trade deficits, intellectual property theft, and unfair practices that had been tolerated by previous administrations for decades. That is not bluster; it is deliberate, hard-nosed negotiation.
The claim about “thousands of carveouts” and “half of imports avoiding tariffs” completely misses the point. Carveouts, exemptions, and targeted negotiations are exactly how trade diplomacy works in practice. They are tools, not failures. Trump used these carveouts to protect U.S. industries that would have been unnecessarily harmed, while still putting pressure on the larger problem of unfair trade. It’s called strategic leverage, not weakness. In fact, even with these exemptions, key sectors- steel, aluminum, and Chinese imports tied to intellectual property concerns, faced real consequences, which encouraged renegotiation of deals like the USMCA and new agreements with China. Those were historic achievements, not symbolic gestures.
The entire framing that tariffs “will inevitably drive inflation to high levels and recession” ignores actual economic outcomes under Trump. During his term, inflation remained moderate compared with historical precedent, unemployment hit record lows, and the U.S. saw strong GDP growth prior to COVID. That’s not what happens when a nation is being “wrecked” by tariffs. And the comment’s projections of inflation under hypothetical future Trump actions are speculative at best, there is zero evidence that simply reintroducing tariffs would automatically spike inflation to catastrophic levels. Economies respond dynamically to policy, not just to headlines.
I find the personal bias in this comment troubling. The repeated framing of Trump as “full of bluster” and “falsely claiming” ignores real-world results. He successfully forced China and other major trade partners to engage seriously in negotiations for the first time in decades. Calling that failure because the media wants to highlight carveouts is intellectually dishonest. Trump’s approach wasn’t perfect, but it was deliberate, strategic, and pro-America first, which is exactly what the critics claim he wasn’t doing.
In my view, the whole tone of this comment is a mix of political bias, selective evidence, and hindsight judgment, rather than a fair assessment of Trump’s trade agenda. To dismiss his strategy as “bluster” is to ignore the real, tangible shifts in trade behavior and policy that his tariffs achieved. That’s not theory—that’s history being written in real time.
Facts regarding the inflation rate --- Trump has held it steady between the 3% he was handed down to 2.7% --- it is odd to be concerned about a 2.7% inflation rate when central banks like the Federal Reserve explicitly target around 2% as “ideal.” Here’s why that perspective makes sense:
Close to the Target: A 2.7% inflation rate is only 0.7 points above the Fed’s 2% goal—well within what most economists consider a healthy, stable range. Economies naturally fluctuate slightly above or below that target without causing structural damage. From day one, Trump has had inflation moving in the right direction, and common sense tells me that’s a positive outcome, no matter how some try to spin the facts. I genuinely consider it a remarkable achievement that he has kept inflation under control even during a tariff war—truly impressive.You wrote: "First, calling Trump “full of bluster and weak-kneed” is pure opinion masquerading as fact." - I figured you would say that. My opinion is almost always based on fact. Calling Trump ‘full of bluster and weak-kneed’ isn’t name-calling, it’s a description of his record.
Examples of BLUSTER (these are factual, btw):
1. North Korea: Talk: “Fire and fury,” threats to totally destroy North Korea, calling Kim “Little Rocket Man.”; Reality: He got embarrassed by Un.
2. China and Tariffs: Talk: 60%+ across-the-board tariffs, promises to crush China economically and “bring all the jobs back.” Reality: In his first term he repeatedly backed off or delayed tariffs when markets wobbled or an election was near, and the famous “Phase One” deal left the core issues (state subsidies, IP theft, industrial policy) basically unchanged. In Trump 2.0 he again announced sweeping tariffs, then partially backed off once the backlash and recession talk got loud enough.
3.Mexico and the Wall: Talk: A giant wall, fully funded by Mexico. Reality: Mostly repairs and short extensions; U.S. taxpayers paid, Mexico did not. That’s pure bluster versus result.
4. “I alone can fix it” promises: Talk: Repeal and replace Obamacare with something “better, cheaper, for everyone” → Never produced a plan that passed Congress.
Talk: “Biggest infrastructure bill ever” → No major infrastructure package in his first term, despite total GOP control at the start. It took Biden to produce the first infrastructure deal in like forever.
WEAK-KNEED:
1. Russia & Putin: Talk: “No one’s tougher on Russia than me.” Reality: At Helsinki he literally sided with Putin over U.S. intelligence on election interference (which in my opinion is traitorous). Sanctions were often watered down or delayed; he pushed to get Russia back into the G7 and never confronted Putin directly on bounties, cyberattacks, or interference in the way his own national security people urged. Tough guy branding, submissive behavior in practice.
2. Syria and the Kurds: Talk: tough-on-ISIS, tough-on-terror rhetoric. Reality: After a call with Erdoğan, he abruptly pulled U.S. troops back and allowed Turkey to attack our Kurdish partners. Even many Republicans called that a betrayal. When an authoritarian strongman pushed, he caved.
3. Iran strike reversal: Talk: maximum pressure, “obliteration” if they crossed him. Reality: After Iran shot down a U.S. drone, he green-lit strikes, then called them off at the last minute.
4. I already mentioned his TACOing on several fronts.You wrote: " He explicitly targeted trade deficits, intellectual property theft, and unfair practices that had been tolerated by previous administrations for decades. That is not bluster;" - Of the three you mention, only IP theft is legitimate - for TARGETTED tariffs only. As has been frequently pointed out almost ALL economists say that trade deficits, with rare exceptions, are normal in international trade; anyone with knowledge of how trade works, knows that. They are neither, in the main, Good or Bad. Using trade deficits as a reason is telling the American public that they are stupid. He even contradicts his own reasoning by putting stupid tariffs on nations with which we have a positive trade balance which undercuts his whole argument.
Clearly, his method WAS to punish the world blindly. There is no other explanation.
As to "unfair trade practices". I had ChatGPT find examples of that and not surprisingly it could find very few. And it was offset by our unfair trade practices on others. You really shouldn't believe every lie Trump says.
Isn't writing "The entire framing that tariffs “will inevitably drive inflation to high levels and recession” ignores actual economic outcomes under Trump. " disingenuous - given that is what I said? What was the point of criticizing something I wrote that agreed with you?
You wrote "The claim about “thousands of carveouts” and “half of imports avoiding tariffs” completely misses the point. " - Tell me exactly how that misses the point when he didn't include them in the first place? Are you telling me he screwed up with his initial blanket tariffs and didn't take America First into account BEFORE creating chaos? Just asking.
You wrote: "and the U.S. saw strong GDP growth prior to COVID.",which is quite biased in its own right - NO, it didn't. It remained moderate (2.5% - first 3 years), in line with Obama's growth numbers (2.2% - last four years).You can cut inflation anyway you want to, but Up is not Down.
First you need to accept the FACT that Biden DID NOT cause inflation - the results of the pandemic did. No serious economist disagrees with that. Your favorite fall guy - stimulus - DID NOT cause inflation, at worst the combination of Trump's HUGE stimulus and Biden's lesser stimulus ticked it up Slightly and only temporarily. If you think I am wrong, please prove it.
You will also have to accept that Biden brought Down inflation from 9.1% in June 2022, maybe it was July, to 2.9% - Headline or 3.2% - Core CPI or 2.6% - PCE or 2.7% - Core PCE. Those are just facts. Those were Trump's starting position.
Then you have to accept that a lot of momentum was generated as Biden dropped inflation from 9.1% to one of those figures, a lot of momentum.
Given that, logic dictates that inflation should have kept falling. And it did for 2 whole months. By April, it fell to 2.3%, 2.77%(May), 2.3% and 2.61%, respectively.
But, after that, it has been a steady Upswing. From NowCast, in December those numbers Increase, not decrease, to [b]2.92%, 2.99%, 2.85%, and 2.93%, respectively. Those are FACTs plus one estimate.
You wrote: "From day one, Trump has had inflation moving in the right direction," - As you can easily see now that since about Day 90, Trump has had inflation moving in the Wrong direction, as predicted."First you need to accept the FACT that Biden DID NOT cause inflation - the results of the pandemic did. No serious economist disagrees with that. Your favorite fall guy - stimulus - DID NOT cause inflation, at worst the combination of Trump's HUGE stimulus and Biden's lesser stimulus ticked it up Slightly and only temporarily. If you think I am wrong, please prove it." ECO
No, first read my comment --- I bid not in any respect male mention of Biden in this Post.... I spend more time correcting your off assumptions than having any form of meaningful conversation...
Note the frist two words in my comment ---IN MY VIEW, I presented nothing that requires backup, my entire comment is my opinion. I do not argue with your stats, nor are they particularly relevant to this conversation.
My point was simply that the inflation rate when Trump took office was around 3%, and in my view he has kept it between 3% and 2.7%. To me, that is only a 0.3–0.7% shift, which seems like a very reasonable inflation rate.
Yes, in my words: “Facts regarding the inflation rate—Trump has held it steady between the 3% he inherited and 2.7%—it is odd to be concerned about a 2.7% inflation rate when central banks like the Federal Reserve explicitly target around 2% as ‘ideal.’” Again, I acknowledge the rate has fluctuated between 3% and 2.7%, but in my view, we are headed in the right direction, and from day one, he has kept it within the parameters I noted.
Now to address a bit of nonsense. Some non-economists are waving off a 0.3–0.7 percentage point recent change in inflation as “meh” in order to defend Trump. That’s a bit rich coming from the same conservative crowd that spent years shrieking that moving from about 2.0% to 2.3–2.5% under Biden was a disaster. Suddenly, when it’s Trump, an 11% jump from 2.7% to 3.0% is no big deal and not worth worrying about. That’s not economics, that’s moving the goalposts to protect their guy.
And this isn’t happening in a vacuum. Trump’s trade war and tariff policies helped keep prices elevated. Tariffs are just taxes on imports, and serious studies of his first-term trade war found that American importers and consumers—not foreign governments—paid the bill. Those tariffs raised costs for U.S. businesses and households and added to inflation pressure. So no, it’s not “meh” when the same people who demanded 2.0% inflation as sacred suddenly decide 3% is perfectly fine, as long as Trump is the one pushing prices up.Yikes---- I thought I had seen it all...
Let me point out that the math is being used rhetorically, not economically. Calling a move from 2.7% to 3.0% an “11% jump” is technically true in a relative sense, but it’s misleading in how inflation is discussed. Inflation is measured and evaluated in percentage points, not relative percent increases. A 0.3 percentage-point change is modest by historical standards, regardless of who is president. Framing it as “11%” is designed to sound alarming, not to clarify economic impact.
The comparison being made is inconsistent and selective. The claim that conservatives “shrieked” about inflation moving from 2.0% to 2.3–2.5% under Biden ignores context. Inflation concerns under Biden were not about a few tenths of a percent; they were about sustained, multi-year inflation well above 5%, peaking over 9%. That’s what triggered public backlash, not a move from 2.0% to 2.3%. So the premise that critics once treated small changes as “disasters” is simply false.
Your argument invents hypocrisy by collapsing timelines. Inflation under Trump’s first term was largely below 2% for most of the period, while Biden’s term saw the highest inflation in 40 years. Treating a short-term move toward 3% as equivalent to a prolonged inflation surge is not an apples-to-apples comparison. The economic concern is persistence and trajectory, not a single data point. Trump has kept inflation under the 3% he had in his second term.
The tariff argument is oversimplified. It is true that tariffs function like taxes and that many studies found U.S. consumers bore much of the cost, but inflation is not driven by tariffs alone. During Trump’s term, inflation remained low despite his tariffs, which undercuts the claim that they “kept prices elevated.” Tariffs may affect certain goods, but they were not a dominant driver of broad inflation the way pandemic spending, supply shocks, and monetary expansion were later on.
The accusation of “moving the goalposts” cuts both ways. Central banks generally view around 2% inflation as ideal, but 3% is not an economic emergency, nor is it universally considered unacceptable in the short term, especially during normalization periods. Pretending that anyone who doesn’t panic over 3% inflation is acting in bad faith is itself a political argument, not an economic one.
So no, to me, this isn’t a coherent economic critique. It relies on rhetorical framing, selective memory, and false equivalence to imply hypocrisy where the underlying conditions were very different. It reads more like a political talking point than a serious analysis of inflation dynamics.
Powell and the Fed do project inflation will continue to move down toward the 2% target in the coming period (next year and beyond).
https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacen … hatgpt.com
Numbers out today --- “This report is being framed as negative by some media, but the numbers look cautiously encouraging. Headline inflation came in well below expectations at 2.7% instead of 3.1%, and core inflation cooled more than forecast as well. That doesn’t mean every issue is solved, but it does suggest price pressures are easing faster than economists thought—and that monetary policy may have more room to adjust than Wall Street anticipated. To me, that’s good news worth acknowledging.
In my view, looks as if we are holding ground and starting to move in the right direction.They are doing their best... and there are plenty of headwinds against them.
I think you will find this highly interesting/informative...it is worth considering, when you remember that the WEF married itself to the UN back in 2019.
Consider ALL the problems we have had since then... from Covid shutdowns globally to the wars ongoing today.
the TRUTH about the World Economic Forum
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYzl7RFi6KQThe numbers out today are at least interesting, but not necessarily indicative of anything.
Economists expressed significant skepticism about the data's accuracy due to distortions from the shutdown. The BLS had to carry forward prices and assume 0% inflation in certain categories, particularly owners' equivalent rent (OER), which accounts for about one-third of the CPI and introduced a downward bias affecting roughly one-third of cities. This could linger, creating ongoing downward pressure on housing services inflation data through April 2026.
Experts like Michael Gapen (Morgan Stanley) called the reading "noisy" and hard to interpret, warning of potential reacceleration in December if technical factors dominate. Alan Detmeister (UBS) noted the zero-inflation assumptions in OER and tenants' rents, while Krishna Guha (Evercore ISI) advised the Fed to treat housing data cautiously. Stephanie Roth (Wolfe Research) pointed to additional downward pressure from holiday discounting in goods. Overall, many viewed the report as flawed and not fully reflective of true inflationary trends.
cnbc.com +1
On X, some users similarly questioned the figures, calling them "made up bs" without full data or noting the use of models to fill gaps, emphasizing that wallets tell the real story amid lingering high costs.
President Trump's Address to the Nation: FULL VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfErTj-sW6g
The SECRET File
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zHxxuCiwMV8
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues … al-reports
America 1st...As a Trumper, are you proud of that address? What did I calculate - 1.4 fanciful exaggerations or big lies per minute. Do you find that acceptable?
To me, it is more signs of his dangerous mental illness.I found it uplifting, and I appreciate the address. I’m a citizen who values a president who stays visible and keeps the public informed. I like that he doesn’t let anything stop him from pushing forward and doing everything he can to keep his promises. I respect that he thinks outside the box and knows how to maneuver around Washington’s bureaucracy and nonsense. He’s a man with a vision, and he fights for that vision every day. I can’t stand the status quo or weakness in leadership, so Trump has my support.
Donald "The Felon" Trump's so-called Weak Agenda sticks a knife in the back of American workers again while raising their energy prices.
"Trump suspends all large offshore wind farms under construction, threatening thousands of jobs and cheaper energy"
He keeps on weakening America's infrastructure - what a very stupid, senile, old man.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/22/climate/ … n-virginiaTrump Administration Orders Nearly 30 U.S. Ambassadors to Leave Their Posts
The Trump administration has ordered nearly 30 ambassadors in embassies around the world to return to the United States within weeks, a move that would leave a large gap in the American diplomatic corps even as President Trump has said he wants to resolve conflicts through diplomacy.
A union representing career diplomats said such a mass recall had never happened in the history of the U.S. Foreign Service.
“Those affected report being notified abruptly, typically by phone, with no explanation provided,” said Nikki Gamer, a spokeswoman for the union that represents career diplomats, the American Foreign Service Association. “That method is highly irregular.”
“The lack of transparency and process breaks sharply with longstanding norms,” she added.
Many of the ambassadors were told in recent days to leave their posts by mid-January. They are all foreign service officers who had been appointed to their positions by the Biden administration and confirmed by the Senate. A standard tour is three to four years.
Candidates for ambassador are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. There are two types of ambassadors: career diplomats and political appointees. The latter are often donors or friends of the president, and they are expected to offer their resignations at the start of a new administration. That was the case when Mr. Trump took office in January, and he immediately accepted the resignations.
However, that is not the norm for career diplomats, who often serve for years into a new administration. The Trump administration did not give a reason for the recalls and has not publicly announced them.
An unofficial list circulated among diplomats on Monday. It showed ambassadors being recalled from every part of the world, with about a dozen being told to leave posts in sub-Saharan Africa. Several diplomats said the list was fairly accurate.
Mr. Trump has not chosen nominees for a number of vacant ambassadorships in sub-Saharan Africa.
Mr. Rubio presided over what he called a “reorganization” of the department this year. The department announced about 1,300 layoffs in July, with 264 foreign service officers among them.
At one point this year, about a dozen senior career diplomats who, before the start of the Trump administration, had gotten assignments to be deputy chiefs of mission overseas were told they would no longer have those jobs. Most of them were women or people of color.
Earlier this month, the union released results of a survey of its members showing that 98 percent of respondents said that workplace morale had fallen since Mr. Trump’s second term began in January.
Most of the survey’s more than 2,100 respondents said they were managing tighter budgets and greater workloads as the Trump administration cut spending, including a drastic reduction in U.S. foreign aid. Eighty-six percent said it had become more difficult to carry out U.S. foreign policy. Only 1 percent reported an improvement.Crazy Trump proves his raging and dangerous mental illness by taking a wrecking ball to American foreign policy.
Unfortunately, the people taking these actions are worse and more dangerous than Trump. He's an useful idiot in that sense.
Donald "the convicted sexual predator" Trump's Weak Agenda has, predictably, destroyed how Allies see America
"Poll: America’s allies say the US creates more problems than it solves"
"Unreliable. Creating more problems than solving them. A negative force on the world stage. This is how large shares of America's closest allies view the U.S., according to new polling, as President Donald Trump pursues a sweeping foreign policy overhaul.
Pluralities in Germany and France — and a majority of Canadians — say the U.S. is a negative force globally, according to new international POLITICO-Public First polling. Views are more mixed in the United Kingdom, but more than a third of respondents there share that dim assessment.
Near-majorities in all four countries also say the U.S. tends to create problems for other countries rather than solve them."
As proof of MAUGA's delusional state - After Trump calling Europeans " a “decaying” group of nations led by “weak” people ", in Trump voter's upside world 70% think America is supportive of our former allies. ROFL.
Anyway, a majority of Canadians and large pluralities of French and Germans find Trump, and therefore America, a NEGATIVE force on the world stage.
Majorities in Canada and Germany and near majorities in France and Britain see Trump as causing MORE PROBLEMS than he solves
This surprises me in how low the numbers are but a majority in Canada, large pluralities in Germany and France, and a plurality in the UK see Trump as not being supportive of them.
Harris voters largely agree with Canada while Trump voters live in a fantasy land.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/2 … l-00702908Trump says he could solve the unemployment problem with one phone call - BUT WON'T!
"After America’s unemployment rate hit a four-year high of 4.6% in November, Trump made the argument that the job market is far better than it appears. His reasoning: He could quickly put millions of Americans to back to work – but won’t.
“Now, if I want to make some good numbers, I’ll add 300,000 jobs. I can do it with one phone call,” Trump said at a campaign-style rally in North Carolina Friday.
He said, if he wanted to, he could force government agencies to add jobs that they lost this year through a combination of resignations, attrition and staffing reductions led by the Department of Government Efficiency.
“They’ll hire them immediately. They’ll pour in. And the 4.5% would be down to 2.5% in a matter of moments. I could get it down to zero – hire a couple of million workers,” Trump said. “But that’s the destruction of a country.”
Trump’s argument contains numerous factual errors. That’s no surprise, considering he has been second guessing jobs statistics for a decade – from when he falsely stated during the 2016 presidential campaign that the jobless rate was 42%, to when he fired the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner this summer over revisions that showed the labor market was worse off than previously expected.
But the most significant problem with Trump’s message is he once again is asking people to ignore their lived experiences of a weakening job market – and believe in an alternative portrait of America’s economy that doesn’t match reality."We are almost one year into Trump's assault upon America - what has he got to show for it?
1. Another looming gov't shutdown at the end of January for starters.
2. A whole lot of bad and a little good.
THE GOOD:
* Signed the TAKE IT DOWN Act (May 19, 2025) — a bipartisan law targeting nonconsensual intimate images (including AI deepfake sexual images) and requiring platforms to remove the content after notice.
* Signed the Filing Relief for Natural Disasters Act (July 2025) — lets Treasury postpone tax deadlines after state-declared disasters even before a federal disaster declaration arrives.
* Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance coverage review (Fairness for Servicemembers and their Families Act of 2025).
* Veteran Fraud Reimbursement Act of 2025 (improves repayment of benefits misused by fiduciaries).
* Veterans’ Compensation COLA Act of 2025 (raises disability compensation & DIC effective Dec 1, 2025).
* Issued an executive order to expand medical marijuana/CBD research (Dec 18, 2025).
* Reduced the violence in Gaza and facilitated bringing all the living hostages home (that is a big one, just not as bid as he makes it out to be yet)
GOOD PARTS of a bad bill - the OBBBA
* Air-traffic control modernization funding (enacted in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, July 4, 2025) – Provides $12.5B to overhaul aging FAA/ATC infrastructure
* No tax on tips (deduction up to $25k, with income phaseouts),
* No tax on overtime premium (deduction up to $12.5k / $25k joint, phaseouts),
* Extra senior deduction (+$6,000 per 65+ taxpayer; phaseouts),
* Car-loan interest deduction (up to $10k; phaseouts; U.S. final assembly requirement)
* Child Tax Credit increased to $2,200 (up from $2,000).
* A new $1,000 government-seeded investment account for newborns
* Dependent Care Assistance Program limit increased (the cap on employer dependent-care benefits).
* Child & Dependent Care Tax Credit made more generous (the bill changes the applicable percentage formula).
* Employer-provided childcare credit expanded (bigger credit; higher cap—aimed at encouraging employers to offer childcare).
* Adoption credit becomes more usable for some families
* Rural healthcare funding. The law authorizes a $50B rural health transformation program (FY2026–FY2030), allocating billions annually to states to improve rural access/quality.
THE BAD {I'll keep it short)
* The OBBBBA.
** Will do serious damage to the nations debt and deficit.
** Will kick millions of eligible citizens of of Medicaid, ACA, and SNAP
** Will drastically increase the income and wealth inequality in America
** Net effect is regressive, the poorest household LOSE resources overall
** Restrictions affecting reproductive health providers for Medicaid patients
** Medicaid cuts will close many rural hospitals and health clinics in spite of the $50 billion plus up.
* Voting access risk: proof-of-citizenship mandate for federal registration
* Refugee admissions suspended - Cruel and against American values
* Border/emergency posture + asylum deterrence tools - Cruel and against American values
* Birthright-citizenship executive order attempt (legal uncertainty for families) - Unconstitutional
Trump issued an EO described as denying citizenship to certain U.S.-born children depending on parents’ status (and it’s being challenged).
The White House
+1
How it harms people: even before final court outcomes, it creates uncertainty for expecting parents and U.S.-born children, with downstream effects on documentation, benefits, and family stability.
* Ending Temporary Protected Status for certain nationalities - - Cruel and against American values
* Tighter work requirements for public benefits (health, food, housing) - Cruel, How it harms people: people can lose coverage/aid due to unstable hours, caregiving, or paperwork “churn” even when they’re trying to comply—reducing household stability.
* Federalized National Guard deployments tied to immigration/protest flashpoints - Abuse of power, unAmerican.- terrorizes the populus
* Childcare funding turbulence via audits/verification changes. How it harms people: even “anti-fraud” moves can create payment delays and closures if implementation is blunt—hurting working families who rely on childcare continuity.
* Large USAID program cuts - An estimated 700,000 people have already died due to Trump worldwide and another 14 million by 2030 if aid is not restored. Will lead to world instability as the pain and suffering increase. Boy, what a legacy to live with.
* Trump's ethnic cleansing program (otherwise known as deportations) - this WILL cause the most damage to American economic interests than any other program he has deployed including his truncated tariff war with the world. If carried to fruition, America will start losing population and therefor smaller or negative growth. Inflation WILL increase as the ability to produce dwindles faster than demand decreases. Many farmers will go bankrupt beyond those caused by his tariffs. The construction industry must shrink. The travel and leisure industries will shrink.
* Trump's war on worldwide trade. This has already ruined relationships with our allies who he now looks at as enemies. It has led to not lower inflation that would have happened given the momentum from the Biden administration but to the highest inflation since 2022. Fortunately, Trump doesn't have much of a backbone so Wall Street coined a new term TACO when it comes to enforcing the tariffs he promised.
* Trump's foreign policy is treating former allies as enemies and former enemies as allies leading to a much more insecure America.
* Trump has hallowed out America's intelligence capabilities allowing more attacks from our enemies (his friends) such as North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, etc.
* For the most part installed incompetent lackeys as heads of key agencies such as DOJ, FBI, DoD, HSA, etc.
* Making communities much less safe due to the side-effects of his cruel deportation program.
* He effectively eliminated Due Process in America when he wants to.
I said I would keep it short, so I will stop here and wait for others to add to the Good and Bad list.I suggest you source your accusations, as well as the good list.
Why, if you read the news, they are self-evident. Do you disagree with any of them? Those I will source.
Oh my — have you read the news? I’ve learned that relying solely on news sources can be risky for one’s understanding.
Reading the news is almost like a game: you have to scrutinize every detail, because news outlets often shape their reporting in ways that appeal to the audience they want to keep coming back. The way a story is presented can subtly skew facts to fit a narrative, rather than letting readers see the full picture. However, some outlets that are less than honest have learned a hard lesson; they are seeing fewer and fewer readers and viewers willing to follow this form of reporting.Okay, if you dont't want to rely on the news when it comes to the incredible damage the termination of USAID has done.
Good friends of mine were working for NGO's. Helping people who put their lives on the line for freedom of speech and woman's rights.
They lost their jobs, unable to protect those people anymore. Many brave people fighting for freedom of speech are put into prison. Because these NGO's don't receive any funds anymore to watch their backs.
The US is not willing to support human rights and freedom of speech in the world anymore. And because of this people are put into jail and are dying.
But who cares... These are far away countries.
The US is not the country to look up to anymore. It's moral ground of spreading free speech and human rights has gone through the drain.
USAID was an enormous soft power tool. It had a lot of influence in how other countries worked with the US. Not anymore. And guess who is stepping into this political gap that the US left behind? China.
It was such a stupid move. USAID was not just financial aid, but it was diplomacy too!!
Stupid Stupid Stupid... And sad...
Happy New Year by the way...No one seems to like countries that fight for free speech and human rights...unless they get to define both. Excellent examples are the increasing attacks on people speaking their mind in the EU, specifically Britain.
Perhaps Britain should pick up the purse and begin financing all these things that they disagree with but pay lip service to anyway?I do agree with Wilderness on one point, a couple of the laws on speech in the UK while may have good intentions, the unintentional consequences appear to make them worse than the cure.
Sadly, his other point is valid as well. I just checked to make sure I was up-to-date but most European nations along with the UK have cut back rather than fill the deadly hole Trump left.
The world will ultimately pay the price for that stupidity.You may be right - the world may pay a high price for not subsidizing the poorer nations.
OR...those same nations just might take up their own cross, follow in our footsteps and DEMAND that their government provide a country to live in. Revolutions do happen, and sometimes the result is good for all.
To expect someone else to pay the price, whether money or blood, to create a moral, pleasant society to live in is the wrong tack to take, for it simply creates dependency forever. Things are generally worth the price paid, and if that price is zero then that is what they are worth.But "to create a moral, pleasant society to live in" is NOT what the aid is for, is it. Isn't it to keep people alive and tamp down a world full of revolution caused by the starving masses seeking food?
Kind of the point, wasn't it? If a revolution is needed to create a livable culture/society, then all the money in the world isn't going to make it so. Only a revolution, and ensuring that won't happen by keeping a degenerate government in place isn't going to help anyone.
Perhaps "honest" is a better term.
But I'm really sorry that you can't seem to follow even the simplest of logic and reasoning.
The UK is a Trump copy machine at the moment. No vision, no stamina. Starmer has no spine.
Countries that are defending freedom of speech are the best. But the US is not defending freedom of speech in the world. As I said, by cutting down USAID the US has cut backing people who fight for freedom of speech and human rights in other countries.
And most of Europe, notably the UK, is coming down hard on the idea and coming up with ever more "speech" that results in arrest.
I have to strongly disagree with that take; it just doesn’t make sense. Cutting USAID doesn’t mean the U.S. isn’t defending free speech or human rights around the world. USAID is primarily a tool for development and influence, not a direct defense of constitutional rights abroad. Helping people with schools, infrastructure, or economic projects doesn’t automatically protect journalists or activists, and history shows U.S. aid sometimes ends up in the wrong hands or even supports governments that don’t respect freedom. I must add, many of the nations we give aid to show great disdain toward the U.S., so it’s not like the money automatically buys loyalty or support for human rights. Real support for free speech abroad comes through targeted programs, legal protections, diplomacy, and partnerships with NGOs, not just a blanket foreign aid budget. You can’t equate “more dollars spent” with “more freedom defended.” Oversimplifying it like this makes it sound like human rights are just line items in a budget, and that’s simply not how it works.
It appears that a majority of voters found it important that, at this point in our current situation, we need to concentrate on putting America first, for many very obvious reasons. The new president was sent to Washington to focus on America.
For decades, the U.S. has been the largest single government donor for foreign aid, including funding for NGOs through USAID. The U.S. spends tens of billions annually on global development, health programs, democracy promotion, and humanitarian aid. While these programs have been important, prioritizing our own country’s needs at this time reflects the choice of the voters and the reality that the U.S. cannot indefinitely be the world’s primary sponsor of aid.
Why should the U.S. be expected to pay out money we don’t have? Consider the fact that we already carry a great national debt and borrow to stay afloat. Perhaps it is wise for the U.S. to become more strategic and responsible about how we spend taxpayers’ money, focusing on domestic priorities instead of borrowing to support other countries.
I hope your new year is a good one...Peter, a majority of Americans didn't vote for America first. The best that can be said is a plurality did, and not even that is true.
A sizable portion voted for Trump ONLY because of his promise that he could do the impossible - bring prices down from the levels they increased to due to the pandemic caused inflation.You may want to address this to Peter's post. He may miss it.
Trump was the new thing on the block the first time. And people hated Hillary Clinton as she looked cold and was a symbol of the establishment. (Trump comes from the same elite class, but well, he was a TV star....)
The second time is completely because of the stupidity of the Democratic Party, or Biden himself who was unable to see that he was to old for the job. And there was not enough time in the end to choose the right candidate for the presidency. Harris was a woman and black, two things just a step too far ahead for many voters. (It's a simple sexist and racists truth I'm afraid, and many will deny it...) It's a wonder that Harris got so many votes.
Trump is a fascist and a bully, and people who voted for him have no clue about fascism and only think that fascism is something to do with WWII.
I see the US as a country with extremes. You've got the interior and you've got the cities on the coasts... This is normal, I think in all countries the capitals are more open and tolerant than the smaller villages in the interior.
The less "foreigners" live in a village, the more afraid the people are for strangers... And xenophobia, racism and sexism is more open and cultivated there.I understand this is your view, and I respect that you’re sharing how you see it, but I strongly disagree with several of your conclusions. Reducing Trump’s wins mainly to sexism, racism, or voter ignorance ignores real and documented factors like economic anxiety, distrust of institutions, foreign policy failures, and a deep frustration with political elites on both sides. Many people who voted for Trump did so deliberately, not because they “don’t understand fascism,” but because they rejected what they saw as condescension, endless wars, cultural overreach, and a political class that stopped listening to them. Labeling tens of millions of voters as racist, sexist, or clueless shuts down discussion rather than explaining outcomes.
I also don’t agree that Harris’s loss can be explained primarily by her identity. Voters regularly reject candidates, male, female, white, non-white. based on policy, credibility, and trust. It’s too convenient to dismiss electoral failure as prejudice rather than examining campaign decisions, messaging, or policy disconnects. And while there is a cultural divide between cities and rural areas, assuming that people in smaller towns are inherently more xenophobic or fearful of outsiders is another broad stereotype that mirrors the very intolerance it criticizes. Fear of unchecked change isn’t the same thing as hatred, and skepticism toward mass immigration or cultural shifts doesn’t automatically equal racism.
I think the U.S. does have extremes, but framing one side as morally enlightened and the other as backward misses the complexity of why people vote the way they do. If we actually want understanding instead of escalation, we have to stop explaining disagreement as moral failure and start acknowledging that many voters are responding to lived experience, not ignorance..."framing one side as morally enlightened and the other as backward." .. That's something I never said. And if you read this in my words I can say that it is a stupid attitude.
I based my opinion on interior villages and cities on the voter facts in The Netherlands. Where people voted for parties who had a strong xenophobic sound. And these villages hardly have any immigrants..
This attitude is I think worldwide.
People fear the things they don't know. People in the cities are used to immigrants and foreigners and don't see them as a thread. People in the smaller villages only know by telling and fear the worst.
Racism and sexism is on both sides. And especially the Democrats will probably not admit that this was one of the reasons not to vote for Harris.
Of course I made a simplification. But to be honest. A woman as a president of the US is far to progressive for this country.
I hope I'm completely wrong Sharlee, but I fear I'm not.I see what you mean, and I appreciate the clarification. You’re right, you didn’t use those exact words, and I understand now that your point was more about the differences in exposure and experience between urban and rural voters, and how that shapes fear or comfort with change. I think that’s an important perspective, and it’s true that unfamiliarity often fuels concern or hesitation.
At the same time, I’d still argue that even when discussing these differences, it’s useful to separate description from judgment. Understanding why people vote a certain way, whether it’s based on experience, culture, or fear, doesn’t require labeling them. Doing that makes it harder to have an honest conversation about the factors driving voting behavior.
I also agree that being ready for significant social change, like electing a woman president, can be challenging for a society, but acknowledging the complexity of voters’ experiences helps us think about how change happens without dismissing anyone outright.Why is it that I have the feeling I'm talkiing to an AI chat bot?
the sentence...I see what you mean, and I appreciate the clarification. You’re right, you didn’t use those exact words..... comes straight out of a chat GPT or similar program.
In the end, and this is scientifically proven, voters vote with sentiment. Sexism, racism, or good looks, body language, accent etc have all more influence than you think. Later on people rationalize, but more often than not people vote with their underbelly first.
Christians will vote quicker for a Christian leader than a Buddhist. Conservative people will rather vote for a man than a woman.
That's not only with a presidency but everywhere. It's the exact reason why white man are still running this world and not black women.She ought to have the curtesy to give her source like the rest of us do. I have no problem, obviously, in using ChatGPT or Grok to phrase things better than I normally would, but I always try to remember to give the AI credit.
As to your point, it is spot on.I guess I can understand why you might think that, but I’m very much a real person responding thoughtfully, not a bot. Polite, measured language didn’t originate with AI. I’ve written this way long before these tools were available to the public. My choosing to be civil isn’t artificial; it’s intentional. I’ll also admit that, in my view, conservatives tend to be less abrasive when trying to make a point, and I’ve long since given up on hair-on-fire back-and-forths that generate more heat than clarity.
As for voting behavior, I don’t disagree with that sentiment; bias and identity play a role, of course, they do. But saying it’s “scientifically proven” and then reducing outcomes almost entirely to instinct oversimplifies human behavior and conveniently sidelines institutions, media influence, policy substance, culture, and individual agency. People may vote emotionally, but they don’t all do so for the same emotional reasons, nor are those reasons fixed across time or candidates.
In my view, the claim that the world is run by white men solely because voters won’t support anyone else ignores history, power structures, access to capital, political machines, and long-standing gatekeeping that occurs well before a voter ever sees a ballot. Bias exists, I’m not denying that—but reducing complex outcomes to sexism or racism alone is just as unhelpful as pretending those forces don’t exist at all. Reality is more complicated, and it deserves a discussion that engages ideas rather than dismissing the person making them.
(I do use Grammarly to keep my spelling and grammar in check when I’m typing quickly. When I use AI tools like ChatGPT, I’m transparent about it and cite the source.)I said scientifically proven as I recently listened to a Dutch science podcast that was about voting, as in October last year there were elections in the Netherlands. And it told me that people are far more voting emotionally than one would think. People might talk rational and have all kinds of arguments, but these arguments are more based on emotions than on reason.
Most people have no clue about the political agenda of a party and only vote for the front man/woman.
In the US is it pretty simple as you only have two parties. So often people are not voting for someone, but against the other.
Reasons on why you vote for someone can be as simple as body language.
And yes, history is dictated by Europe and man, in other words white man.
White man conquered the world. (except for China and Japan)
Is Elon Musk black? Is Geoff Bezos black? or the pope? How many people in the position of power are black or a woman in the world?
It is not even close to 50/50
It is sad but true.
And yes, of course the world is far more complicated. I know, but people often don't want to hear these things.The claim that voting is “scientifically proven” to be mostly emotional is not controversial, but it is also not the conclusion the commenter thinks it is. Emotional input exists in all human decision-making, including scientific reasoning itself. That reality does not mean voters are ignorant, irrational, or incapable of weighing policy. In the United States, elections reliably shift based on concrete factors, such as economic conditions, inflation, war, immigration, healthcare, and Supreme Court rulings. If Americans were voting primarily on body language and vibes, these measurable variables would not repeatedly predict electoral outcomes, but they do.
Where this argument truly collapses is when it is applied to race in American society. Black Americans make up roughly 13–14% of the U.S. population, while white Americans make up about 60%. Despite that imbalance, the United States elected a Black president, Barack Obama—twice, by popular vote, with tens of millions of white Americans voting for him both times. A majority-white electorate did not merely tolerate a Black candidate; it elevated him to the highest office in the world for eight consecutive years. That is not emotional tokenism. That is mass democratic choice overriding racial majority.
If American voters were primarily driven by racial bias or shallow emotional cues, this outcome would be statistically improbable, if not impossible. You do not accidentally elect a president for eight years in a constitutional republic, especially during a financial crisis and two ongoing wars, without sustained, rational support across racial lines.
The broader claim that “history is dictated by Europe and white men” is also a blunt oversimplification. Europe did not dominate history because of skin color, but because of early industrialization, naval technology, capitalism, gunpowder, and political institutions that allowed for rapid expansion. China, Japan, the Ottoman Empire, and others were imperial powers themselves. This is not a racial story, it is a technological and institutional one. Reducing it to race erases both non-European agency and historical complexity.
Pointing to figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, or the Pope further muddies the argument. CEOs are not elected, and the Pope leads a religious institution historically rooted in Europe. These examples say nothing about voter behavior or democratic capacity. In contrast, the U.S. has elected Black governors, senators, mayors, cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, and a Black president, despite Black Americans being a numerical minority. That fact directly contradicts the idea that power in democratic systems is racially predetermined.
The “it’s not 50/50” line is also irrelevant. Democracy does not promise proportional outcomes; it promises equal votes and equal legal opportunity. Outcomes reflect choices, timing, candidates, and policies, not immutable racial ceilings. Suggesting otherwise denies both voter agency and minority success.
Yes, the world is complicated.
Yes, emotions play a role in voting.
But the United States, a majority-white country, electing a Black president twice is definitive evidence that American society is not locked into racial determinism.
That isn’t sentiment.
That’s arithmetic, history, and reality.“Where this argument truly collapses is when it is applied to race in American society. Black Americans make up roughly 13–14% of the U.S. population, while white Americans make up about 60%. Despite that imbalance, the United States elected a Black president, Barack Obama—twice, by popular vote, with tens of millions of white Americans voting for him both times. A majority-white electorate did not merely tolerate a Black candidate; it elevated him to the highest office in the world for eight consecutive years. That is not emotional tokenism. That is mass democratic choice overriding racial majority.”
“If American voters were primarily driven by racial bias or shallow emotional cues, this outcome would be statistically improbable, if not impossible. You do not accidentally elect a president for eight years in a constitutional republic, especially during a financial crisis and two ongoing wars, without sustained, rational support across racial lines.”
———
There may still be hope for you, yet….
‘A woman as a president of the US is far to progressive for this country.
I hope I'm completely wrong Sharlee, but I fear I'm not.”
—-
It is a cro-magnon attitude that other Western Democracies have long since outgrown.
Harris started with a series of disadvantages, she was relatively unknown in political circles.
She came into candidacy too late to gather the support she needed.
In spite of all this, she did not lose the popular vote by any landslide type margins.
As a Democrat
That is why I resisted her candidacy in the beginning for the reason that racism and sexism would have weighed the scales against her and despite Biden’s deficiencies changing horses in mid-stream always comes with risks.
Fearing foreigners is part and parcel of what makes up a lot of the GOP adherents today, It is a natural reaction from people with limited exposure to others outside of their circles.
You are not wrong, you are right.For all sorts of reason, I have wanted a competent woman as president for a very long time, way before Hillary.
I was not impressed with Harris from the primaries and it got worse when she started her vice presidency. It really seemed like she was bumbling along. I'm not sure what it was, but about two years in, my impression began to change. I stated hearing articulate things in her that impressed me. Once she was nominated to replace Biden, then she really took off in my estimation.
I also read her book 107 Days. It was well written and thoughtful and she didn't pull any punches. You can one more thing to your lists of things that worked against Harris that led to her demise - Biden's inner circle - they weren't just neutral observers, they helped drag her down.
She tried to change the message to the economy/affordability but she got no help from other Democrats.
Judging from her book, she learned a lot. If she decides to run again, I'd vote for her again. That said, I would listen hard to Newsome.Find a Middle-of-the-road woman the Democrats would support and you just might have a President.
But as long as the only thing offered to the country is a far left criminal like Clinton, or a far left idiot like Harris, you aren't going to convince the majority to vote for her.You are right, America seems to want a DANGEROUSLY mentally ill, corrupt, vindictive Felon, Sexual Abuser, and insurrectionist as your president.
Enjoying your higher prices yet?I see so many coming down... Fun, you don't. It must be hard to not beable to face what you just don't want to.
I see great promise for the new year and an economy that will start improving by the second quarter. There are actually some encouraging signs in the economy right now that many people might not realize. Overall inflation has eased significantly, meaning that the rate at which prices are rising has slowed, and several everyday costs are actually coming down, like airline tickets and hotel rates, used car prices, and even some clothing and consumer goods showing small price drops as competition and supply pressures balance out. Recent data also show that housing cost growth has slowed sharply, with home price increases at their lowest levels in years and, in some measures, modest declines in certain markets, making the housing market more balanced and potentially more affordable. Perhaps one of the most concrete examples of relief people will actually see in their monthly bills is in utilities: in parts of California, **PG&E has announced rate cuts for 2026 that will reduce typical residential electric bills by about 5 % and natural gas bills by about 3 %, the fourth decrease in two years, resulting in customers paying significantly less than they did two years ago. All of this shows that while inflation hasn’t disappeared, price pressures are easing in meaningful areas, and real relief is starting to show up in things like travel, housing trends, and even utilities for many consumers, which is promising for everyday budgets heading into 2026. A new Golden Age is on the horizon."Overall inflation has eased significantly," - NO, it hasn't. At best, the fall was .3%, but with Oct missing, nobody knows for sure what happened.
" There are actually some encouraging signs in the economy right now that many people might not realize." - Isn't that the same line Biden used?
"and several everyday costs are actually coming down, like airline tickets and hotel rates, used car prices, and even some clothing and consumer goods showing small price drops as competition and supply pressures balance out. " _ A COUPLE of those are true, but over all they are not.
For example, while PG&E is lowering its costs after four years of skyrocketing price increases, that is the opposite of what is happening nationwide. Across America utilities are increasing at a 6.9% annual rate. for electricity and 9.1% for natural gas.
Used car prices have not gone down, they have gone up - 3.6% YoY,
Clothing over all is flat or increasing.
Even the good news story of lower airfares have nuances. A couple are that fuel prices are down and people are buying more economy class than they used to.
If you call Clinton far left, I guess you call Trump center left.....
Your comments have encouraged me to look into the book that she wrote. It is ashamed that she was back stabbed by those in her own camp. The power of racism and misogyny seems to have influence in both parties, it is just with the Democrats there is less of it. Regardless, who would have thought that an accomplished public servant would lose to a felon, with 34 counts I might add? Who would have thought that after Trump made a fool of himself in the debate, that he would retain so much support. It does attest to the power of provincial attitudes and fear of the other to the point where the victims have to snuggle up to the lie rather than acknowledge a painful truth.
The truth is sometimes very inconvenient...
Of course there are more reasons, but I think sexism and racism are taboos in the democratic circles. But if you are in the middle, and a swing voter, and these are the people who diced in the end, underbelly feelings count.
I have friends on the left here in Spain who think they are open and tolerant, but I know that they are racist and antisemitic. Basically because they don't know that much black and Jewish people.
How you vote doesn't say automatically that you are open and tolerant towards others.
Especially the war in Gaza showed me that antisemitism does not have a political preference.
As said USAID is America first. It is an incredibly tool as what is called Soft Power. It is investing in countries and you get it back in ten fold by making deals with those countries. It's building influence. Now the influence in Africa and South America is taken over by China. Not by military force, but by aid and projects.
Stopping USAID was politically a stupid move.
And the US has the money..
And if you talk about tax. Well tax the super rich. You can find billions there that you can use for good courses.You sound like a socialist; no one owns the wealth they earn or create. It all belongs to the government, that is happy to take it away from them.
For example, you would take away the wealth Musk has created ("tax the super rich"), without ever considering just how many people he is housing. How many mouths he is feeding. How many children he is educating. How many people he sends to the doctor. How many people (and the earth) will benefit from his cars, his starlink, even his spaceflight.
Trust me here; the government cannot do as well as Musk is doing, and he does it without taking it from someone else to play Robin Hood with.I hear people say stopping USAID was “stupid,” but I just don’t buy it. Yes, aid can be a soft-power tool, but it’s far from guaranteed. Decades of U.S. aid in Africa and Latin America show mixed results, and sometimes it’s mismanaged or even fuels anti-American sentiment. China is building influence too, sure, but through loans and infrastructure that lock countries into debt, not exactly a model we need to copy dollar for dollar. Influence doesn’t have to come from handing out cash; trade, investment, and real partnerships often do more for both sides. And let’s be honest, every dollar spent abroad is a dollar not spent here at home, where Americans are already stretched. Taxing billionaires might sound easy, but their wealth isn’t just sitting around; it’s tied up in stocks, property, and investments. I’m all for smart influence, but just throwing money at foreign aid isn’t a strategy, it’s spectacle.
Making it up or relying on social media is much more riskier in my opinion. Fox definitely shapes their reporting - you are correct there. But, that is not true of reputable sources like CNN, ABC, CBS (who is slowing becoming a Fox subsidiary that bows to Trump), NBC PBS, BBC, The Guardian, The Hill, Politico and the like.
And you last conclusion is simply not true. Losing viewership is not related to how honest they are unless we are talking about Fox. The more dishonest Fox is, the more MAGA watches it. Sad.
Trump finally does something useful to the people, although it is still probably illegal - but hey, this is Trump "the Felon" we are talking about.
"Trump calls for a 10% cap on credit card rates in his latest appeal to affordability concerns"
Granted, pro-business Republicans will hate him for it. but those of us being ravaged by the CC companies will find it helpful.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/09/business … rest-ratesGiven the thousands of "calls" for everything under the sun that Democrats make, I rather doubt that asking CC companies to limit their interest rates is illegal. We do have free speech, don't ya know?
(If you are being "ravaged" by cc card companies it is a direct result of your actions, with your full knowledge of what would happen and with your complete cooperation and agreement. It is not the result of some nefarious action by people hiding in the dark. Take responsibility for your own actions for once instead of playing the inevitable "victim" card.)
Just my opinion.
I’m fully behind what President Trump is doing in Venezuela and the pressure he’s now putting on Cuba. After decades of dictators like Nicolás Maduro using oil and money to prop up oppressive regimes in the region, the U.S. has finally taken a strong stance that reshapes the geopolitical balance.
Trump made it absolutely clear: Cuba will no longer receive Venezuelan oil or financial support, zero, and he’s urging them to make a deal with the United States before it’s too late. That’s not just tough talk; that’s decisive leadership. Cuba’s economy has long been propped up by subsidized Venezuelan oil, and with the fall of Maduro, that lifeline has been cut. The result is a huge shift in leverage that the U.S. is using to bring Cuba to the negotiating table rather than let them continue to benefit from failed socialist governments in the region. OH YEAH!
Venezuela’s massive oil reserves once underwrote Havana’s economy and influence. Trump’s message reflects a strategy to wrest control of those resources back from hostile regimes and reinvest them in American energy dominance and regional stability. By ending the oil pipeline to Cuba and isolating Maduro’s allies, the U.S. is signaling that it won’t tolerate governments that not only abuse their own people but also destabilize neighboring countries, too.
Of course, Cuba’s government has condemned the U.S. actions and blamed sanctions for their economic woes, but that’s the same old script from authoritarian leaders who refuse to take responsibility for their own failures. Cuba’s reliance on external support is a direct result of decades of failed socialist central planning, not U.S. interference alone.
I see the capture of Maduro was a game‑changer. Removing a brutal, corrupt dictator who enriched himself while his people suffered opens the door to a new future, not just for Venezuela, but for the entire hemisphere. Now the U.S. is moving to ensure that Venezuela’s oil benefits Americans and Venezuelans alike, and that former allies of the Maduro regime, like Cuba, have to choose a new path or face the consequences.
This isn’t reckless brinkmanship, it’s smart leverage. It’s about reclaiming influence, stopping the flow of oil and money that has long supported tyranny for decades, and pushing regional actors toward reforms that benefit ordinary people rather than oppressive governments. Again, OH YEAH!
In short, this move shows strength, strategic clarity, and a willingness to put American interests and democratic principles first in a region that has been dominated too long by corrupt, authoritarian leaders.
Thank You, President Trump------ I mean, I am now smiling every day. Pinch me, am I sleeping? LOL
Related Discussions
- 30
Why Drill, Baby, Drill Isn't Working
by kerryg 7 months ago
Contrary to what has been suggested in several posts here over the last few weeks, Obama's supposed imposition of "regulation after regulation, roadblock after roadblock" is not what's holding up domestic oil drilling, it's the oil companies themselves holding out for higher profits.This...
- 32
Oil spill result of corporate negligence and a lack of over sight.
by Stump Parrish 14 years ago
How do we make sure this doesn't happen again you ask? Deregulate further and open more of the gulf to drilling. That could only makes sense to those in the oil companies back pockets.
- 214
Obama's attacks on BP not going down well in the UK
by CMHypno 15 years ago
Obama's attacks on BP are increasingly being viewed in the UK as signs of his anti-British stance. Or is he just trying to pull attention away from his own administration's failures?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … itain.html
- 47
Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With Venezuela
by Sharlee 3 years ago
What do you think about becoming dependent on dictators for energy? Is this not all half-ass-backward?Wall Street Journal Biden’s Dirty Oil Deal With VenezuelaCaracas gets a sanctions reprieve while the U.S. vetoes a loan to Guyana, a rare U.S. ally in the region."At the United Nations climate...
- 58
What Do We Have Here? A Constitutional Crisis?
by Willowarbor 10 months ago
Vance's statement that "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power" has sparked concerns among legal experts, who suggest it could lead to a constitutional crisis or a breakdown of the American political system. This is due to the fundamental principle that...
- 59
What's the libertarian take on the BP oil spill?
by Don W 15 years ago
Would a free market have prevented this from happening?I'm guessing the libertarian argument would be that the failings of state regulation was a contributing factor. Those failings stemming from the fact that the regulators were in bed (figuratively and literally) with those regulated. Whereas...